Australian company fined $400,000 after young apprentice was burned alive in shocking explosion
Kyah McDonald, 21, died when he was ordered to de‑rim a metal drum in a bin room filled with flammable vapours at a Gold Coast Isuzu dealership in October 2022.
The apprentice diesel motor mechanic suffered burns to 90 per cent of his body in the fireball and was rushed by paramedics to Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital.
He died later that day. Three other workers were injured.
James Frizelle's Automotive Groupin Arundel was charged with failing to comply with its primary health and safety duty after the incident.
The business, which sold and serviced new and used Isuzu trucks and parts, was sentenced over Kyah's death in Southport Magistrates Court after pleading guilty, the Courier-Mail reported.
In sentencing, Acting Magistrate Sarah Thompson said the risk was 'obvious' and 'foreseeable', and the steps to prevent the explosion were not complex.
The business also failed to provide adequate training and supervision, correctly store and label flammable liquids, or post safety signage in the areas where combustible liquids were stored.
The business has since overhauled its safety practices, but Ms Thompson said those same 'simple' and 'not burdensome' measures could have easily been done before Kyah's death.
In a tribute on the Queensland Workers Memorial to fatal workplace tragedies, his family said healing from the tragedy and heartbreak had been an extremely raw and unbearably painful journey that continued every single day.
'There are so many tears, yet we look for ways to fill the emptiness and to find the same joy Kyah was always able to find in other peoples' success and happiness,' they said.
'He was someone that people would gravitate towards. His energy was calming and playful. Younger children would attach themselves and play with him for hours. Animals would be trusting of him.
'Adults would praise him and girls would dote on him.'
In 2016 Kyah started a started a school based apprenticeship and worked for his father's building company as an apprentice carpenter and was fully qualified in 2021.
A passionate car enthusiast he started his new apprenticeship at Isuzu in May 2022, just five months before his tragic death.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Ex-wife loses Supreme Court fight against retired banker over the £80m he gave her in a bid to avoid tax - before she divorced him and kept the money
An ex-wife of a retired banker has lost a Supreme Court battle over an £80million sum he granted her in an attempt to avoid tax before their divorce. Clive Standish, 70, a sheep farming tycoon and former chief financial officer of banking giant UBS, we d Anna Standish, 56, in December 2005. But the couple separated in 2020 after a 15-year marriage, during which they had two children. The marital assets at the time of the split amounted to £132million, almost all of which had grown from the £57.3million fortune Mr Standish brought into the marriage. He retired in 2007, living off the profits of a £28million sheep farm in Australia, while the couple enjoyed life in 18-bedroom mansion Moundsmere Manor, set in 83 acres near Hampshire village Preston Candover. The court heard of Mr Standish's worries about changes to the inheritance tax regime announced in 2016 by HM Revenue and Customs. He feared these would expose his personal assets to a 40 per cent levy on his death. He then transferred £80million-worth of assets to his wife in 2017, with a plan for them to eventually be placed in an offshore trust for the benefit of their children. But the marriage hit the rocks before that could happen, leaving the couple estranged and Mrs Standish claiming the £80million was hers outright. She said it had been 'gifted' to her and so should form part of the matrimonial pot to share on divorce. Mr Justice Moor ruled in the divorce courts in December 2023 that Mr Standish should get £87.6million of the total family wealth valued at a total £132,648,326, with his wife walking away with £45million. That decision was made using the so-called 'sharing principle' of dividing the family fortune. Mrs Standish was said to have insisted the £80million was 'matrimonial' money to be divided equally, despite bringing 'no significant wealth' of her own into the marriage. Last year the Court of Appeal cut her payout, ruling that the 'fair outcome' of the case would leave Mrs Standish with £25million rather than £45million. She has since taken the case to the Supreme Court in a bid to get the ruling overturned and reclaim the extra £20million. But today five of England and Wales' most senior judges upheld the earlier verdict, saying that the £80million had not been turned into 'matrimonial assets' simply because it was put in her name to avoid tax. The court ruling stated: 'Tax planning schemes to save tax, involving transfers of assets from one spouse to another, are commonplace. 'The problem for the wife is that there is nothing to show that, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 assets as shared between them. 'Rather, the transfer was in pursuance of a scheme to negate inheritance tax and it was for the benefit exclusively of the children. 'The parties' intention was that the £80million should not be retained by the wife.' Tim Bishop KC, for Mr Standish, had said during the Court of Appeal hearing that the husband had 'a very successful career in banking'. He told the judges that in June 2004 his client was worth £57.3million, while Mrs Standish had 'no significant pre-marital wealth'. Mr Standish is British but moved to Australia in 1976 before moving back to England with his family in 2010. That potentially left him open to a huge inheritance tax hit when prospective changes were announced in 2016 - affecting anyone with a British domicile of origin returning to the UK from a country they had made their new permanent home. In the face of this, he 'commenced a process to shield his property from IHT' by 'transferring his assets to the wife to hold for a period and for the wife then to settle the transferred assets into a trust', the court was told. Mr Bishop said: 'The husband made the transfers in March 2017, but the wife failed to transfer the assets into trust by the time the marriage ran into problems in 2019 and then broke down finally in 2020.' Mr Standish's barrister criticised the divorce judge's eventual division of the assets last December as 'unfair'. Mr Bishop argued it had been wrong for the £80million to have been regarded as 'matrimonialised' property, rather than the personal property of the husband and not to go into the pot for division. The Court of Appeal went on to rule that 25 per cent of the £80million should be shared, as that money had been made by the husband during a time when he was being supported by his 'homemaker' but that the rest should not - cutting her divorce payout by £20million. For Mrs Standish, Richard Todd KC said the £80million was her property and everything else apart from the sheep farm ought to be equally split - leaving the former spouses with £56.3million apiece. But delivering the Supreme Court ruling, Lord Burrows and Lord Stephens, with whom Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd Jones and Lady Simler agreed, said the Appeal Court had got it right. They said: 'Here, the source of the pre-marital assets within the 2017 assets was exclusively the husband. 'Those assets have been transferred to the wife. But the problem for the wife is that there is nothing to show that, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 assets as shared between them. 'Rather, the transfer was in pursuance of a scheme to negate inheritance tax and it was for the benefit exclusively of the children. 'The parties' intention was that the £80million should not be retained by the wife but should be used by her to set up trusts for the children, thereby negating inheritance tax. 'In short, there was no matrimonialisation of the 2017 assets because, first, the transfer was to save tax and, secondly, it was for the benefit of the children not the wife. 'The 2017 assets were not, therefore, being treated by the husband and wife for any period of time as an asset that was shared between them. 'In relation to a scheme designed to save tax, under which one spouse transfers an asset to the other spouse, the parties' dealings with the asset, irrespective of the time period involved, do not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared between them. Rather, the intention is simply to save tax. 'Transfers of capital assets with the intention of saving tax do not, without some further compelling evidence, establish that the parties are treating the capital asset as shared between them. 'The 2017 assets comprise, first, the husband's pre-marital assets and, secondly, earnings that the husband made in the years 2004-2007 to which the wife contributed by being the home-maker and childcarer during those years. 'It is not in dispute that the latter constitutes matrimonial property. That should be shared on an equal basis. 'The Court of Appeal assessed the latter, i.e. the matrimonial property, as comprising 25% of the £80million.' The judges said that meant that 25 per cent 'was to be shared equally, and the former, i.e. the pre-marital assets/non-matrimonial property, as comprising 75 per cent of the £80million'. They added: 'We see no reason to interfere with that assessment. The decision and orders of the Court of Appeal should therefore be upheld. For all these reasons, we would dismiss the appeal.' Legal experts have responded by describing the judgment as a 'landmark ruling' - and suggesting it offered a cautionary note to many other couples. Aasha Choudhary, family law partner at law firm Shakespeare Martineau, said: 'Merely transferring assets into joint names or to a spouse does not automatically transform them into matrimonial property, unless there is clear and documented intention to share an asset. 'While it may not be the most romantic topic before a wedding, this decision is a timely reminder of the value of prenuptial agreements. 'Divorces can be emotionally fraught, and decisions made during a separation don't always reflect long-term intentions. 'A well-drafted prenup allows both parties to set expectations early and protect their respective interests with transparency and fairness, saving the financial and emotional cost of litigation. 'Most crucially, this ruling makes it clear that if couples want a non-matrimonial asset to become shared property, it must be recorded clearly. 'Without that, the default position may now lean toward such assets remaining non-matrimonial, a major shift in the legal landscape.'
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
The bizarre place customs found FIVE hard drives on passenger who allegedly tried to smuggle child abuse material into Australia
A 52-year-old man has been charged after allegedly concealing child abuse material in his shoes and underwear at Sydney Airport. The Sydney man landed from Fiji in the early hours of June 25 and was selected for screening by Australian Border Force (ABF) officers. A large volume of child abuse material was allegedly discovered on his phone across several applications. The man said during an interview that he had deleted images prior to arriving in Australia. Officers found an additional mobile phone, a tablet, smart watch, hard drive and laptop during a baggage examination. These items have been held for further inspection. ABF officers conducted a frisk search on the 52-year-old which revealed he had five additional hard drives hidden in his shoes and one in his underwear. The Sydney man was immediately arrested and charged with multiple charges including importation of child abuse material, use of a carriage service to transmit child abuse material and obstruction of Commonwealth officials. Acting Superintendent Michael Mahony branded the lengths the 52-year-old man went to conceal his crime as 'disturbing'. 'This detection is the direct result of a robust combination of intelligence profiling, data analysis, and the vigilance of our front line officers,' acting superintendent Mahony said. 'But this isn't just about apprehending this individual – it's about protecting children from harm. 'Every file intercepted is a potential crime prevented, and a child safeguarded.' 'This case is a disturbing example of the extreme lengths some individuals go to in order to conceal their criminal activity, and we congratulate the officers involved for removing one more predator from our streets.' The Sydney man was refused bail and will reappear in court on August 19.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Former NRL WAG Arabella Del Busso buys $210K Range Rover following release from prison - and unveils her custom number plate
Arabella Del Busso has nabbed a new set of wheels following her release from prison for stealing. The former NRL WAG, who completed her jail sentence in July last year, took to Instagram on Wednesday to flaunt her new car: a $210K Range Rover Sport. The 33-year-old could be seen in the video unveiling her new ride at Essendon car dealership in Victoria, leaving little to the imagination in a skimpy frock. For the outing, she wore a tiny black mini-dress with an open back that showed off her many tattoos, as well as a pair of lacy stocking and sky-high heels. The car, a white 2024 Range Rover Sport complete with leather seats and an ebony interior, is estimated to cost around AU$208,047. From A-list scandals and red carpet mishaps to exclusive pictures and viral moments, subscribe to the DailyMail's new showbiz newsletter to stay in the loop. However, the price tag could be a lot more considering the vehicle was custom-made for the social media star. Eagle-eyed followers noted Arabella's personalised number plate, which read QBELSY, short for Queen Arabella. What's more, the car was addressed to Arabella as 'Queen B', a nod to her boxing career. 'My custom baby arrived,' she further boasted as she posed with her back towards the camera. Arabella was discharged from Australia's largest female prison last year after she served five months behind bars for stealing $52,000 from her employer when she was working as a receptionist for a Sydney medical business. She has been embroiled in scandal since her relationship with former Bulldogs star Josh Reynolds came to an end when she faked three miscarriages with him. Del Busso starred on TV's SAS Australia show in 2020, revealing why she pretended to be pregnant. 'I told my partner [Reynolds] that I had a pregnancy scare, and I showed it to him and said it was ours, when in fact, it wasn't our scan at all,' she confessed. The car, a white 2024 Range Rover Sport complete with leather seats and an ebony interior, is estimated to cost around AU$208,047 Asked what prompted her to lie about the pregnancy, Del Busso admitted the relationship was 'coming to an end'. 'I didn't know how to deal with losing someone,' she continued. After being asked if her plan was to 'cheat the person into staying with you', Arabella said she just wanted 'to try and draw him back in'. In July 2024, she left Dillwynia Women's Correctional Centre in Sydney and is understood to have begun a new life with her boyfriend in Melbourne. It is understood that a judge had seen it as impractical to give her a community service order when she was moving to Victoria. In a court affidavit, her boyfriend James, a builder also in his 30s, said she was 'kind, supportive, loving'. 'I feel people don't know the real Arabella Del Busso,' he stated. 'The Bella that I have grown to love is the most caring, genuine, down-to-earth, selfless person I have met from a relationship perspective.' The pair had already started dating when she was facing charges for stealing over $50,000 from a Sydney medical practice back in 2019.
