Penalty decision upheld in gas cylinder explosion case

The Victorian Court of Appeal has upheld the decision to impose $550,000 in penalties on a supplier of prefilled industrial/LPG gas cylinders, Supagas Pty Ltd, for a 2017 incident in which acetylene and oxygen gas cylinder bottles exploded (WorkSafe Victoria v Supagas Pty Ltd [2025]).

The explosion resulted from acetylene and oxygen gas cylinder bottles being loaded from a Supagas site into the fully enclosed toolbox (against safety instructions) in the tray of a customer’s ute. This resulted in the explosion, which caused injury and significant property damage.

In the lower Court, Supagas unsuccessfully defended the charges before a jury, and was found to have failed to implement a system of work that enabled employees to perform their work in a way that was safe and without risks to health. In the judgment, it was found that the company failed to take the following reasonably practicable steps:

conduct a visual inspection of a customer’s vehicle before supplying and loading gas cylinder bottles onto the vehicle, specifically to ensure that:
- the vehicle was adequately ventilated; and
- the gas cylinder bottles could be transported in an upright position while remaining adequately secured;
refuse to load the gas cylinder bottles onto a customer’s vehicle if it did not satisfy the visual inspection;
provide other options to customers if their vehicle did not satisfy the visual inspection, including arranging for the delivery of the gas cylinder bottles; and
provide instructions on the loading and transport of the gas cylinder bottles to the driver of the vehicle.

The matter demonstrated the broad duty of care owed by a person conducting a business or undertaking. It meant that although Supagas may have provided its employees with the necessary information, instruction and training about the risks associated with transporting acetylene cylinders, and the measures needed to reduce those risks, it nevertheless failed to provide and maintain a system of work that ensured that those measures were followed.

3 decisions that illustrate when dismissal for out-of-hours conduct is unfair
To avoid unfair dismissal exposure when dismissing an employee for conduct outside work hours, you must be able to show sufficient connection between the conduct and the employee’s employment ...