Falling short of health and safety duties results in climber fatality

An indoor climbing company and two of its officers were recently convicted and fined for breaching their duties under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (WHS Act), in relation to an incident that resulted in the death of an experienced climber (SafeWork NSW v Crestville Holdings Pty Ltd; Garben and Stevens [2025]).

Climbing gym

Crestville Holdings Pty Ltd operates Sydney Indoor Climbing Gym in St Peters, New South Wales. Crestville had three directors, but only two of them – Mr Garben and Mr Stevens – were in charge of day-to-day operations.

The gym was made up of two climbing areas: the main room and the new room.

There were several climbing methods climbers could use in the gym, including ‘auto-belays’, which allow climbers to descend from the top of a climb without assistance. Two auto-belay units were installed in the new room and one in the main room. The units were located on top of the climbing walls, attached to steel bar anchors. When not in use, their lanyards were clipped via carabiners to a belay gate 1.5 metres above ground. Climbers would then clip the carabiners onto their harness before starting a climb, and the lanyard would automatically retract as the climber ascended up the wall.

Fatal incident

On the date of the incident in October 2021, an experienced climber was using an auto-belay while climbing a wall in the main room. The wall was 12.5 metres high, and there were eight possible routes ranging from easy to hard. Before the climber reached the top of his climb, the lanyard that was supporting his weight snapped. The climber fell approximately 12 metres to the floor and lost consciousness. He later died from his injuries.

All three auto-belays were removed, examined and tested by SafeWork NSW and NSW Fire and Rescue Technical Rescue. This testing found that the auto-belays were overdue for servicing, and exhibited significant signs of wear and tear that affected their overall function. Additionally, since its installation, there were four entries in the gym’s ‘spinners and ropes’ maintenance log, which noted that the auto-belay used by the climber had not been taking up the slack in the lanyard for the last 1 to 2 metres of the climb.

Guilty plea

Mr Garden and Mr Stevens accepted that they had breached their duty of care as officers under section 27(1) of the WHS Act by failing to take reasonable steps, including:

Failing to require, instruct or direct the company to implement and enforce an appropriate system to ensure the auto-belays were regularly inspected and serviced, including a system for tracking those inspections and the resolution of maintenance issues.
Failing to require, instruct or direct the company to provide appropriate information and training to workers in relation to the inspections of these systems.
Failing to require, instruct or direct the company to provide appropriate instructions to climbers about discontinuing use of the auto-belays if slack developed in the lanyard.

Crestville’s liability was based on similar failures under section 19(2) of the WHS Act.

Court judgment

The Court accepted the defendant’s submissions that there were some measures in place at the time of the incident, such as signage and requirements for staff to conduct visual inspections of all equipment. However, the Court observed that these were not sufficiently enforced to ensure issues with auto-belays were quickly identified, monitored and resolved.

The defendants acknowledged that the risk of harm was both obvious and reasonably foreseeable. Crestville was fined $281,250, while Mr Garben and Mr Stevens were each fined $84,375. The defendants were also ordered to pay the prosecutor’s costs.

Company changes

Following the incident, Crestville permanently removed all auto-belay systems from the gym, and reviewed its inspection and maintenance procedure. As a result, it implemented a new Inspection and Maintenance Policy, which provides for:

daily inspection;
issue logging and remediation;
quarterly operational inspections; and
external annual testing and inspections.

The difficulties of proving a genuine redundancy when you have a contractor workforce
An employee who is dismissed on grounds of genuine redundancy cannot make an unfair dismissal claim under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ...