SafeWork NSW v Momentum Consulting Group Pty Ltd

Date of orders: 09 February 2026

Decision date: 09 February 2026

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Before: Scotting DCJ

Decision: 1 Momentum Consulting Group Pty Ltd is convicted.
2 I impose a fine of $125,000.
3 I order pursuant to section 122(2) Fines Act 1996 that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.
4 The offender is to pay the prosecutor’s costs of the proceedings, as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords: CRIME – prosecution – work health and safety – duty of persons undertaking business – duty of employer – risk of death or serious injury – injury to worker
SENTENCING – objective seriousness – deterrence – aggravating factors – mitigating factors – capacity to pay a fine – appropriate penalty
SENTENCING PRINCIPLES – no record of previous convictions – good prospects of rehabilitation – remorse
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY – use of mobile plant - likelihood of risk occurring – whether defendant had knowledge of risk - whether risk reasonably foreseeable – workers not given adequate training

Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Fines Act 1996
Work Health and Safety Act 2011

Cases Cited: Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37
Jahandideh v R [2014] NSWCCA 178
SafeWork NSW v Momentum Consulting Group Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 400

Category: Sentence

Parties: SafeWork NSW (Prosecutor)
Momentum Consulting Group Pty Ltd (Offender)

Representation: Counsel:
A Mykkeltvedt (Prosecutor)
M Baroni (Offender)
Solicitors:
Legal, Department of Customer Service (Prosecutor)
Mills Oakley Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2024/29596

Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. Momentum Consulting Pty Ltd (the offender) appears for sentence after being convicted at trial of an offence under s 33 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (the Act).

2. The Court’s reasons for the finding of guilt are set out in the decision: SafeWork NSW v Momentum Consulting Group Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 400 (the verdict judgment). This judgment assumes familiarity with the verdict judgment and adopts the defined terms used in the verdict judgment.

3. The maximum penalty for the offence is a fine of $594,021.

Facts

4. The factual findings are set out in the verdict judgment. I have taken all of those findings into account in coming to the appropriate sentence. What follows is a summary of the relevant factual findings in the verdict judgment to permit an understanding of the sentence imposed.

5. The offender operates a labour hire business in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. From about May 2021 until February 2022, the offender placed a number of its employees to work for Saveba Pty Ltd (Saveba) trading as Coco Republic at its retail furniture warehouse at 2-6 Dolerite Way, Pemulwuy (the warehouse), including Zayne Krupowicz and Alfred Fifita.

6. The warehouse stored furniture and homewares to facilitate distribution to Saveba’s retail stores, its other warehouses and to customers. The items stored at the warehouse included large and heavy items of furniture, such as lounges and dining tables that could weigh as much as 350kg. Items were stored on full height racks in the warehouse that were accessed with the use of high-reach forklifts. Most items were stored and transported around the warehouse on pallets with the use of forklifts, pallet riders and pallet jacks.

7. On 13 May 2021 Chezelle Richards, a Senior Account Manager of the offender conducted an inadequate work health and safety (WHS) site inspection of the warehouse. Ms Richards was inexperienced in conducting WHS site inspections, she had been inadequately trained on how to do so and this was contrary to the offender’s Manual on how to conduct WHS site inspections. Ms Richards sighted a number of safety documents kept by Saveba but had not been trained on how to assess if the systems in the documents were adequate to control the risks. Ms Richards failed to identify through her observations or through her enquiries of Saveba, the use of pallet riders at the warehouse and consequently the risks to the workers posed by their use. Ms Richards failed to obtain a written position description from Saveba for the role of “furniture assembler” and did not gain an adequate understanding of the work that would be performed by the labour hire workers at the warehouse.

8. Between 13 May 2021 and 9 February 2022, the offender placed 28 labour hire workers with Saveba to work at the warehouse. In that period, the offender failed to identify through the observations of its account managers or through communications with the workers and Saveba, that pallet riders were being used at the warehouse and that the labour hire workers were routinely required to operate them. The offender failed to conduct another WHS site inspection after 13 May 2021, contrary to its own policy.

9. The offender’s onboarding systems for new employees were insufficient to convey that the offender had to be notified of any changes to the work that a worker was being asked to perform.

10. The offender failed to verify that the labour hire workers were receiving appropriate training from Saveba, including a basic site induction in the case of Mr Kruprowicz.

11. The offender did not have systems in place to obtain relevant safety related information from the labour hire workers or Saveba.

12. At approximately 7.03pm on 9 February 2022, Mr Krupowicz was operating an electric pallet rider when he was involved in a collision with a pallet rider being operated by Mr Fifita in an area of the warehouse known as the hardstand. Mr Krupowicz and Mr Fifita had not been given adequate training on the operation of a pallet rider at the warehouse by Saveba. As a result of the collision, Mr Krupowicz suffered a significant crush injury and a compound fracture to his right foot, that later required his right leg to be amputated below the knee.

13. The prosecution of the offender was for a breach of its s 19(1) duty only, pursuant to s 33 of the Act and it was not alleged that Mr Krupowicz was exposed to a risk of serious injury by the offender’s breach of duty.

The Offender’s Case on Sentence

14. The offender read and relied upon the affidavits of John Patrick, affirmed on 27 November 2025 and Stavroula Galanakis, affirmed on 27 November 2025. The following is a summary of their evidence. I will try not to repeat matters already referred to.

Momentum Consulting

15. The offender was established in 1999 and provides workforce management solutions across Australia. The largest component of its business is providing blue collar workers into healthcare, trades, engineering and automation, building and construction, distribution and logistics and industrial and manufacturing industries. The offender has 65 active clients nationally.

16. The offender has seven registered offices in Sydney, Parramatta, Brisbane, Melbourne, and Perth. Currently it has 38 employees in its offices and 1,060 casual employees on weekly average.

17. The offender’s current senior management team is as follows:

(a) John Patrick — Managing Director; (b) Elizabeth McDowell — Group Human Resources (HR) and Operations Manager; (c) Ian Satur — General Manager; (d) Stavroula Galanakis — National Operations Manager; (e) Tania Faria — Head of Client Development; (f) Dominic Roberts — Director Executive, Business & Technical Recruitment; and (g) Yurina Awal — Accountant.

Mr Patrick

18. Mr Patrick is the founder and sole Managing Director of the offender. He is based in London, UK and makes regular trips to Australia.

Ms Galanakis

19. Ms Galanakis is the National Operations Manager of the offender. She began her role as a 360 Consultant at the offender on 2 October 2007. In March 2024 she was appointed as the National Operations Manager.

20. Ms Galanakis stated in her affidavit that she has a long-standing understanding of the offender’s health and safety (WHS) practices and operations because of her over 18 years’ experience with the offender.

21. Ms Galanakis stated that her duties involve coordinating and overseeing all activities around internal recruitment, human resources, WHS, training and development, quality and service delivery, along with the leadership of onsite clients.

Remorse and Contrition

22. Mr Patrick accepts responsibility for the offence and the offender’s failure to comply with its duty.

23. Mr Patrick offers an unreserved apology and expresses regret and remorse for the injury and associated stress sustained by Mr Krupowicz and his family on behalf of the offender.

The incident

24. Mr Patrick stated in his affidavit that he was informed of the incident when he was in London. During this time, he stated that he cooperated fully and made every effort to stay informed about the incident.

25. Ms Galanakis stated in her affidavit that the offender immediately sought information about the injury of Mr Krupowicz by contacting his mother following the incident.

26. In the days following the incident the offender appointed Barbara Morrison, a Senior Rehabilitation Consultant from SISRehab to conduct regular communication with Mr Kurpowicz and his family.

27. The offender offered Mr Krupowicz employment and retraining for an office-based position but the offer was rejected by Mr Krupowicz.

28. The offender also offered counselling on several occasions to all casual employees at the site and to the internal team.

29. The offender ceased all communication with Mr Krupowicz and his family after his claim was transferred to the Complex Claims Team along with an EML. The Complex Claims Team has since taken over all communications.

Changes made following the incident

30. Following the incident the offender made significant changes in its operations with the following steps:

(a) retraining of all employees in relation to safety including:

(i) retraining managers on site safety inspections and risk assessments including the biannual refresher course; (ii) developing a new Accounting Manager Manual dated April 2025; (iii) retraining all Service Delivery staff on onboarding process for casual employees; (iv) providing opportunity to obtain external certification in WHS (BSB41419 – Certificate IV) for employees with over 12 months’ tenure at the offender’s cost;

(b) revising recruitment and onboarding process for casual employees with a focus on revamping communication, record keeping and safety practices including:

(i) returning to the face-to-face interviewing and onboarding process; (ii) investing $50,000 on new software called “Onboarded”; (iii) implementing a functional assessment called “Move Safe”; (iv) providing onboarding safety training with safety video/assessment and WHS policy review/declaration. Casual employees are required to review the safety video every six months; (v) introducing Pre-assignment Discussion that needs to take place 24 hours prior to the commencement of assignment between the casual employee and Service Delivery staff; (vi) sending a confirmation email to ensure the casual employee is clear about their assignment; (vii) requiring an Account Manager to accompany the casual employee on their first day to ensure that a proper induction is carried out;

(c) revising employee communication and consultation practices including:

(i) engaging in regular post-placement monitoring procedures including an initial follow-up call, completion of WHS Self-Assessment Check within the first week of the assignment and weekly/fortnightly telephone check-ins; (ii) completing a Site Task Observation List and Casual Onsite Performance Review during each site visit; (iii) providing WHS messages on pay slips to casual employees; (iv) sending monthly emails containing WHS policy to all employees; (v) increasing weekend workforce to provide a contact point at the offender for casual employees on weekend shifts; (vi) extending onsite communication on noticeboard at client sites;

(d) revising client communication and consultation practices including:

(i) providing a Client Job Description Form if no written job description is provided; (ii) amending the client business terms with a focus on proactive safety enquiries; (iii) revising the Risk Assessment and Site Inspection Report with a new section on safety management; (iv) revising the Shared WHS Responsibilities Discussion Checklist; (v) conducting frequent site visits – weekly or biweekly for active clients (with over 10 employees of the offender) and monthly for non-active clients at minimum; (vi) conducting a site inspection and risk assessment on client sites every six months;

(e) implementing new WHS systems including:

(i) investing $7,000 in AS/NZS ISO 4500 — Occupational Health and Safety Management systems through Global Mark; (ii) investing an annual fee of $5,800 to hold AS/NZS ISO 9001 — Quality Management System; (iii) establishing a new WHS Safety Unit in January 2025 for the offender’s WHS compliance and safety enhancement in every aspect; (iv) developing an internal WHS Review Checklist to be completed every six months and completed by the HR/WHS Advisor; (v) introducing an internal Safety Award Program to recognize excellence in safety across its business.

31. Ms Galanakis stated in her affidavit that the offender continually reviews and renews its WHS processes.

Community involvement

32. Ms Galanakis stated that the offender has supported a number of charitable organizations through regular donations and sponsorship. The offender also supports local sporting teams and has strong relationships with local high schools and universities through hosting interns and engaging in work experience placement partnership.

Prior Convictions

33. The offender does not have any previous WHS prosecutions in NSW or any other state. It has been operating for approximately 26 years.

34. Prior to the incident the offender did not have any prohibition or improvement notice issued by the SafeWork NSW or its equivalent in other states or territories.

Consideration

35. I have had regard to the objects of the Act set out in s 3 and the purposes of sentencing set out in section 3A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Objective Seriousness

36. The offence involves some objective gravity.

37. The risks posed to the labour hire workers were known to the offender. Ms Richards identified the risks posed by material handling equipment (MHE) but failed to recognise that pallet riders were a type of MHE regularly used in the warehouse. Ms Richards did not understand how large and heavy items or items on pallets were moved around the warehouse. By failing to identify the operation of pallet riders in the warehouse, the offender was not in a position to assess that the risk to the workers from their operation, or whether that risk was being adequately controlled. The offender’s systems for consultation with the labour hire workers and Saveba were inadequate and failed to identify the operation of the pallet riders by the labour hire workers, the nature of the training being provided and the extent of supervision being provided.

38. The risk to the labour hire workers included a risk of death.

39. The offender had in place a system to assess the safety of the workplaces of host employers, but it was inadequate in a number of respects. Ms Richards was inadequately trained and lacked the necessary experience to conduct the WHS site inspection. It was also not implemented in line with the offender’s documented systems. The offender’s consultation systems were insufficient to obtain relevant safety related information from the labour hire workers or Saveba.

40. The processes that should have been implemented were well known and referred to in the relevant guidance material. They involved minimal expense and minor inconvenience to the offender. The failures in the systems of the offender were fundamentally incompatible with the type of business it was conducting.

41. The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the offender’s ability to deliver training to the labour hire workers, to undertake site visits and to perform WHS site inspections. This is a significant mitigating circumstance to be considered in assessing the objective seriousness of the offence.

42. I have taken into account the maximum penalty for the offence.

Deterrence

43. The penalty imposed in relation to the offences must provide for general deterrence. PCBUs must take the obligations imposed by the Act very seriously. The community is entitled to expect that both small and large businesses will comply with safety requirements. General deterrence is a significant factor when safety obligations are breached: Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd v Nash [2016] NSWCCA 37 at [180].

44. There is some need for specific deterrence in this case because the offender still operates a business where it sends employees to a number of workplaces operated by other PCBUs and where it lacks control over the systems of work. The offender did have a safety system in place at the time of the incident. The offender has taken significant steps following the incident to address the failings in its safety systems.

Aggravating factors

45. There are no relevant aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors

46. The offender does not have a record of prior convictions: s 21A(3)(e) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The offender has operated the business since 1999.

47. The offender has good prospects of rehabilitation: s 21A(3)(h) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The offender has demonstrated, by the steps it has taken after the incident, that it has good prospects for rehabilitation.

48. The offender, through Mr Patrick, has accepted responsibility for the offence and expressed remorse: s 21A(3)(i) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The offender has accepted the Court’s findings in the verdict judgment. I am satisfied that the mitigating factor is established, but it must be afforded less weight than if it had been made in connection with a plea of guilty. The offender endeavoured to provide support to Mr Krupowicz following the incident.

49. The offender was a good corporate citizen. I am satisfied that the offender contributed to the community through its financial support of charitable causes, local community organisations and educational institutions.

Capacity to pay a fine

50. The Court is required to have regard to s 6 Fines Act 1996 before imposing a fine. Where an offender seeks to have a fine reduced on the basis of a limited capacity to pay, it bears the evidentiary onus of convincing the Court that it should exercise its discretion to limit the amount of the fine. The offender’s capacity to pay is relevant but not decisive: Jahandideh v R [2014] NSWCCA 178 at [16]. A substantial fine may still be warranted as a result of the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence.

51. The offender did not contend that it had a limited capacity to pay a fine.

Penalty

52. Momentum Consulting Group Pty Ltd is convicted.

53. I impose a fine of $125,000.

54. I order pursuant to section 122(2) Fines Act 1996 that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.

55. The offender is to pay the prosecutor’s costs of the proceedings, as agreed or assessed.

********