Whs Risk Assessment Case in Review: Wallace v Caesarstone Australia Pty Ltd

Whs Risk Assessment: Terminal Lung Disease, Negligent WHS Risk Assessment, and a Landmark Engineered Stone Case That Cost Defendants Indemnity Costs

A Queensland Supreme Court judgment has exposed catastrophic failures in WHS risk assessment across the engineered stone manufacturing and supply chain. In Wallace v Caesarstone Australia Pty Ltd, a worker contracted a terminal lung disease; and the defendants’ conduct in defending the case revealed how negligent WHS risk assessment practices can create compounding liability.

The Incident: Engineered Stone and Respirable Crystalline Silica

Gerard Ross Wallace worked with engineered stone products during his employment. Engineered stone; composed primarily of quartz; releases respirable crystalline silica (RCS) dust when cut, ground, or processed. Prolonged exposure to RCS is known to cause silicosis, a terminal and irreversible lung disease.

Wallace now claims he contracted a terminal lung condition as a result of his work with engineered stone. His wife, Sarah Louise Wallace, sues for loss of consortium.

What began as a workers’ compensation claim became a multi-defendant litigation nightmare; a clear indictment of industry-wide failures in WHS risk assessment for a known hazard.

The Defendants and the WHS Risk Assessment Failures

The case names ten corporate defendants:

1. Caesarstone Australia Pty Ltd (manufacturer)
2. Smartstone Australia Pty Ltd (manufacturer)
3. WK Marble & Granite Pty Ltd (supplier)
4. Laminex Group Pty Limited (manufacturer)
5. Cosentino Australia Pty Limited (manufacturer)
6. Halifax Vogel Group Pty Limited (supplier)
7. Caesarstone Ltd (parent company)
8. Carsilstone Pty Limited (manufacturer)
9. Group Manufacturing Pty Ltd (employer)
10. Accent Benchtops Pty Ltd (employer)
11. WorkCover Queensland (statutory insurer)

Each of these entities had a duty to conduct appropriate WHS risk assessment for silica exposure. The fact that Wallace contracted a terminal disease suggests that duty was breached across the supply chain.

The Procedural Failure: 18 Months of Negligence

But here’s where the judgment becomes shocking. The defendants neglected their obligations under court orders and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules for 18 months. When the plaintiffs moved to proceed to trial, the defendants had not even signed the required Request for Trial Date.

Worse, when confronted with this delinquency, the defendants offered excuses rather than accountability. They blamed the plaintiffs for delivering expert reports. They complained that other engineered stone cases on the Supervised Case List should proceed first. They scrambled at the last minute to identify expert witnesses they hadn’t even briefed.

Justice Davis J was scathing: “After 18 months of neglect by the defendants, they scrambled around at the last minute, and tried to lay blame at the feet of the plaintiffs.”

The Court’s Finding: Conduct Sufficiently Delinquent for Indemnity Costs

The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs’ costs on an indemnity basis; a rare and punitive costs order reserved for conduct that departs significantly from the standards expected in litigation.

Justice Davis J found:

• The defendants were in default of court orders
• The default persisted for approximately 18 months without satisfactory explanation
• The defendants’ defence of the application was unreasonable
• The conduct reflected “relevant delinquency” requiring sanction

This judgment sends a clear message: negligent WHS risk assessment is one thing. Negligent conduct in defending claims arising from poor WHS risk assessment is another; and courts will punish it.

Critical WHS Risk Assessment Lessons from This Case

This case exposes multiple generations of WHS risk assessment failures:

1. Silica Hazard Identification Was Known

Respirable crystalline silica has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen since 2012. Any organisation manufacturing, supplying, or using engineered stone products should have identified silica exposure as a “high risk” hazard requiring rigorous WHS risk assessment and control measures. The fact that ten entities were named as defendants suggests this hazard was systematically underestimated or ignored.

2. Supply Chain Risk Assessment Was Absent

Manufacturers had a duty to warn suppliers and end users. Suppliers had a duty to warn employers. Employers had a duty to warn workers. The involvement of so many defendants suggests this information chain broke down; a fundamental failure of WHS risk assessment across the supply chain.

3. Engineering Controls Were Likely Inadequate

The hierarchy of controls demands:

1. Elimination or substitution
2. Engineering controls (local exhaust ventilation, wet-cutting)
3. Administrative controls (work procedures, training)
4. PPE (respiratory protection)

A WHS risk assessment would have identified that PPE alone is insufficient for engineered stone work. Engineering controls (water suppression, sealed cutting) are mandatory. The fact that Wallace contracted a terminal disease suggests these controls were not implemented.

4. Monitoring and Surveillance Were Absent

Best practice WHS risk assessment for silica-exposure work includes health monitoring and baseline lung function testing. Workers should have had access to respiratory health surveillance. The absence of such monitoring suggests the hazard was not taken seriously.

What This Means for Your Organisation

If your business manufactures, supplies, or uses products containing respirable crystalline silica, you have an absolute duty to conduct a robust WHS risk assessment. This case demonstrates that:

• Courts will find you liable for terminal diseases caused by inadequate silica control
• Defensive litigation conduct matters; judges notice when you delay, blame, and fail to take responsibility
• Supply chain partners can all be pursued simultaneously
• Indemnity costs awards mean you pay full legal fees of the successful party, not just a discounted amount

Your WHS Risk Assessment Checklist for Silica Hazards

If you work with engineered stone, natural stone, or silica-containing materials:

✓ Conduct a formal WHS risk assessment identifying silica as a serious hazard
✓ Implement engineering controls first (water suppression, wet-cutting, extraction)
✓ Provide fit-tested respiratory protection as a secondary control
✓ Establish health surveillance programs (baseline and periodic lung function testing)
✓ Train all workers on silica hazards and control measures
✓ Keep records of WHS risk assessment, training, and health monitoring
✓ Review and update your WHS risk assessment annually or when work processes change

---

Building Defensible WHS Risk Assessment Frameworks

This case shows that courts scrutinise not just whether WHS risk assessment was conducted, but how well it was conducted and how it was defended.

At HSE Direct, we specialise in helping organisations conduct defensible WHS risk assessment frameworks for high-hazard industries; including engineered stone, mining, manufacturing, and construction.

We help you:

• Identify and classify high-risk hazards
• Design hierarchical control measures backed by evidence
• Document your WHS risk assessment process comprehensively
• Build audit trails that demonstrate good faith compliance

Get started with our free WHS risk assessment toolkit:

• Download our WHS Risk Assessment Template at HSE Direct Free Resources
• Follow us on Instagram @hse_direct for case law updates and risk management insights

For Queensland-specific guidance on engineered stone and silica hazards, refer to:

• Safe Work Queensland ;  guidance on engineered stone hazards
• WorkCover Queensland ;  claims and liability information
• National Safe Work Australia ;  silica dust standards and codes of practice

---

Case Citation: Wallace v Caesarstone Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) QSC 250 (25 November 2025)