A worker was given the right safety gloves but chose not to wear them. She was ultimately injured, sued her employer, and lost the case. That is the short story of Nemet v Hally Labels Pty Ltd [2025] QDC, a case decided in the District Court of Queensland. The court dismissed the workers’ claim and awarded no damages. This article examines the implications of workers not wearing PPE.
It would be easy to read this case as proof that supplying personal protective equipment (PPE) is enough on its own. That reading misses the point of this case law example. The employer won because of the evidence it brought to court in the matter, not because a judge decided that gloves are always enough. The case holds several useful lessons about controls, records, and how work safety claims are typically run through a court.
What happened in respect of the PPE?
Ms Nemet worked as a print machinist for Hally Labels Pty Ltd, a label maker in Wacol Queensland. On 17 May 2015, she was cleaning a part of a printing machine called an impression unit. A blade from the unit fell and struck her left hand. She cut the back of her left thumb and damaged a tendon (one of the cords that help the thumb move.
The company had given its workers cut-resistant gloves for this exact task. By her own account, Ms Nemet was not wearing them when she was hurt.
By the time the case reached trial, her lawyers had stopped acting for her. She ran the case herself and was the only witness who gave evidence for her side. The company, by contrast, brought detailed evidence about its safety systems and training.
Why the workers’ claim failed
Every employer has a legal duty to keep people safe. Under section 19 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) must protect workers’ health and safety, as far as is reasonably practicable. A similar duty exists under common law, the law built up by courts over time, and an employer cannot hand it to someone else.
This duty is not a promise that no one will ever be hurt. To win, a worker must prove two things: that the employer did not do enough, and what a careful employer would have done differently. Here, it was up to Ms Nemet to prove this.
The court found that the company had not breached its duty. The training, induction, and supervision were adequate. Asking workers to wear cut-resistant gloves when handling blades was a reasonable step, and it added up to a safe system of work on these facts. Ms Nemet did not show that a better system was available, what it would have looked like, or what was wrong with the system in place. Her other claims, such as poor signage and risk assessment, failed because no evidence supported them.
This is where safety practitioners should look closely. PPE sits at the bottom of the hierarchy of controls, because it only works when someone remembers to use it and does nothing once it is off. The case does not say that gloves meet the duty in every print room. It says only that, on the evidence given, Ms Nemet did not prove the system was unsafe. A case run differently might have asked a harder question: why could a blade reach an unprotected hand at all, and was a higher-order control, such as a machine guard, reasonable and possible?
When breaking the WHS Act is not the same as being sued
Ms Nemet also argued that the company had breached sections 19, 20, and 27 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld). In short, these cover the main duty of care, the duty of a person who manages or controls a workplace, and the due diligence duty of officers. Breaking these duties can lead to prosecution. On its own, though, it does not give a worker the right to claim compensation. Section 267 of the Act, headed “Civil liability not affected by this Act”, makes this clear. A compensation claim still depends on common law negligence. That is why the lack of evidence cost her the case.
When a worker is partly to blame for WHS issues – contributory negligence
After finding no breach, the court also looked at whether Ms Nemet was partly to blame, in case it was wrong about the breach. This is called contributory negligence. The court said that any payout would have been cut by half to reflect her own actions. She agreed that she had chosen not to wear the gloves, and she could not point to anything about the work that led to that choice.
The court relied on Kennedy v Queensland Alumina Limited [2015] QSC 317. In that case, a worker ignored his training, the court treated this as a serious failure to take care, and his damages were halved. The Court of Appeal agreed in [2016] QCA 159. The line between a simple slip and a serious failure depends on the facts. When work is rushed, repeated, or full of distractions, a lapse is easier to forgive. Choosing not to use safety gear that is right there, for no clear reason, is not.
Why good records matter for work safety
The most useful lesson is about evidence. Under cross-examination, Ms Nemet could not remember key parts of her induction and training. She called no medical evidence and gave no figures to support her claim for lost earnings. As a result, the company’s expert and system evidence was barely challenged.
A court can only decide on the evidence in front of it. For an employer, that evidence is built long before any dispute. Training and induction records, signed competency assessments, risk assessments, safe work procedures, toolbox talk records, and records of PPE handed out and replaced are what proved a safe system of work here. An independent check, such as a WHS audit, tests whether those controls can actually be shown to work. A control is only as strong as the records that show it was planned, explained, used, and reviewed.
What this means for work safety practitioners
Nemet is a warning, not a green light for business’. The hierarchy of controls still applies, and leaning on PPE alone is still the weakest position, even when it wins a single case. People will have lapses and at some time workers not wearing PPE will occur for a variety of reasons, and that is a reason to design a hazard out, not a reason to assume workers will always do the right thing. The strength of an organisation’s records will often decide whether a defended claim can be won.
We recommend that organisations treat records of their controls, training, and reviews as a core part of managing risk, not as paperwork to finish later. Safetysure helps clients choose controls that match the hierarchy of controls and build the evidence that supports both compliance and a strong defence if a claim is made. To talk it through, see our WHS consulting services.
Sources
- Nemet v Hally Labels Pty Ltd [2025] QDC (District Court of Queensland, Dearden DCJ)
- Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), ss 19, 20, 27, and 267
- Kennedy v Queensland Alumina Limited [2015] QSC 317; appeal dismissed Kennedy v Queensland Alumina Limited [2016] QCA 159
- Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, “Print machine operator fails to establish employer liability in hand injury claim” (common law claim case study)