Queensland case underscores regulators’ powers in work health and safety investigations

The case (11-page / 497KB PDF) involved Mastermyne Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Australian mining group Metarock Group Ltd, and an investigation into the fatality of an employee of Mastermyne which was carried out by an inspector from Resources Safety and Health Queensland.

The Supreme Court of Queensland found that the inspector was within his rights to enter Metarock’s head office and copy 14,000 documents as part of his investigation, despite not having a valid warrant at the time.

While the ruling in this case involved the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999, almost identical powers apply under the model Work Health and Safety Act 2011 to inspectors investigating suspected workplace safety breaches. All organisations should note that, in these situations, inspectors are free to access any information they choose, including correspondence sent by former employees of the organisation.

Background to the case

In September 2021, a Mastermyne employee was killed in an underground coal mine in Queensland when a mine roof collapsed.

In April 2024, the inspector entered Metarock’s Queensland head office with a team that included a computer forensics expert.

The inspector provided Metarock's general manager of health, safety, environment and community (HSEC) with a warrant and informed him that it was being issued in relation to an ongoing investigation into the fatality. The warrant was for an offence under section 41 of the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld), which relates to obligations of coal mine operators.

The inspector also provided a list of company documents the computer forensics expert would need to copy from a number of sources including Mastermyne’s server, the HSEC general manager’s work computer, and three employee email accounts – which included both current and former employees.

In total, the inspector and his team identified roughly 14,000 documents as likely to be within the scope of the warrant.

Following this, Metarock applied to the Supreme Court of Queensland to challenge the validity of the warrant and argued that the documents that had been copied by the inspector had been unlawfully obtained.

The court agreed that the warrant was invalid – with one of the reasons being it did not state the offence it was required for – but ultimately held that the inspector was entitled to seize and copy the documents he and his team had obtained.

The court noted that, regardless of whether the inspector relied on the warrant to enter the workplace and the limitations of the warrant, the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 allows officers to enter coal mines with or without the consent of the person in charge and copy documents as part of their investigation.

Practical implications for organisations

Inspectors are free to seize any information they can while investigating suspected safety breaches. As such, employees need to be accountable for the communications they send internally. In addition to inspectors being able to obtain correspondence from safety personnel, they can also seek correspondence from other employees whether they are employed by a PCBU - persons conducting a business or undertaking – or not.

Ultimately, anything not protected by LPP can be obtained and used as evidence by a regulator. Had the documents been protected by LPP, the inspector would have been prevented from gaining access to the communications.

Co-written by Laura Slocombe of Pinsent Masons.