Folaumoeloa v CCS Commercial Construction Specialists Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 592 (18 September 2025)

‘Lewis gave clear, sensible and logical evidence, which I accept’. Judge J Keogh.

Lewis is a qualified engineer who has worked in the automotive industry for 27 years. He regularly performed task risk assessments and has developed company safety manuals over that period.

Paragraph 97:
Lewis is a qualified engineer who has worked in the automotive industry for 27 years.
He regularly performed task risk assessments and has developed company safety
manuals over that period. Lewis has lectured at a university level on hazard
identification, risk assessment and control, and on the legislative framework relating
to workplace safety. He has engaged in volunteer and extracurricular activities
including with Steamrail Victoria, BlazeAid and in theatre set design and
construction. He regularly used power tools in each of these pursuits. Since 2019,
Lewis has practiced as an engineer, safety adviser and ergonomist specialising in risk
management in a variety of settings. I accept that Lewis’ training and experience
qualifies him to express opinions about matters including design, construction, the
safe use of mechanical equipment and the risk assessment process.

Paragraph 98:
Lewis demonstrated in his reports the way in which Folaumoeloa attempted to cut the
form ply. He said that the posture was subjectively very uncomfortable and that it
was difficult to hold the circular saw stable and vertical, which made it very likely the
blade would twist in the kerf and kick back. He said that kickbacks were difficult to
control when adopting this posture, especially with the circular saw held in one
outstretched arm.

Paragraph 101:
Lewis identified missed opportunities to devise and implement a safe system of work
to eliminate or control the risk of injury

Paragraph 102:
Lewis said that it is imperative that an employer verify competency before a worker
uses a circular saw. He would expect an employer to go through the VOC checklist
item by item with the worker. Lewis was taken to Stephens’ note in the VOC that
‘when observing [Folaumoeloa] operate saw, he looked more than competent’. Lewis
said that this is not the way to certify competency.

Paragraph 103:
Lewis said that kickbacks are a recognised potential consequence of using a circular
saw, and it is the responsibility of an employer to train an employee to ensure they are
competent in dealing with them.

Paragraph 104:
Lewis said that the ‘normalisation of deviance’, whereby safety breaches become
psychologically acceptable when done routinely, is common. He said that this makes
it essential for employers to provide regular updates and training about safety.

Paragraph 106:
Lewis gave clear, sensible and logical evidence, which I accept.

Paragraph 107:
I accept the evidence of Folaumoeloa, Wilson and Lewis that the form ply could have
been cut using a reciprocating saw had one been available.

Full court report can be accessed via the Australasian Legal Institute – Folaumoeloa v CCS Commercial Construction Specialists Pty Ltd