The plaintiff alleged that both his labour hire employer and host employer failed to provide a safe system of work, adequate equipment, and proper training, leading to a workplace accident during a demoulding task that caused him to suffer a spinal injury.
In issue
- The plaintiff was employed by Direct Personnel Services Pty Ltd (DPS) and working under a labour hire agreement (LHA) between DPS and host employer Mineral Technologies Pty Ltd (MT). The Court considered issues of liability and apportionment between the employer and host employer, along with the impact of the plaintiff’s credibility issues on both liability and quantum.
The background
The plaintiff was employed by DPS and placed at MT’s Carrara facility in 2019 to perform demoulding tasks involving heavy fibreglass spirals. The plaintiff alleged that on two separate occasions on 11 July 2019, the fibreglass spirals fell to the floor while he and a co-worker were demoulding them, causing him to suffer a disc protrusion at the L4/5 level.
The formal LHA between DPS and MT had expired in 2018, but DPS continued to provide workers to MT under the same terms as the LHA, pending negotiation of a new contract. The defendants agreed that MT was in control of the system of work implemented for the demoulding of the spirals.
The plaintiff alleged that:
- MT faced exposure in negligence for failing to implement and/or enforce a safe system of work, and would be vicariously liable for the actions of his co-worker and supervisor.
- DPS faced exposure in negligence for similar reasons as MT, or in the alternative, for a breach of the implied term of the plaintiff’s employment contract to provide the plaintiff with a safe workplace and system of work.
Liability was denied by both MT and DPS.
The plaintiff’s credibility was in issue. Both defendants raised that the plaintiff had given inconsistent statements to medical professionals and inconsistent evidence, along with withholding relevant information from the Court. He told health professionals he was a private investigator and created a LinkedIn page declaring skills, expertise and qualifications he had obtained (which was false).
The plaintiff was 34 years old when the incident occurred, and 40 years old at the time of trial. He had not returned to work since the incident, and sought to recover damages on the basis that he was essentially unable to return to work for the remainder of his life. He sought to recover damages of $1,274,209.13 (plus costs as against MT).
The decision at trial
Despite concerns about the plaintiff’s credibility, the Court accepted the plaintiff’s version of events given that MRI scans taken soon after the incident showed he had suffered the injuries alleged. Accordingly, the Court made findings of negligence against both MT and DPS, and noted the following:
- MT had reasonable means of obviating the risk, namely by installing a device to prevent the spiral from falling, providing more detailed training and ongoing supervision, effecting a standard work practice which sufficiently dealt with the issue and assigning a more experienced co-worker to work with the plaintiff.
- DPS had an ongoing duty to check the workplace was safe, and failed to conduct/arrange for continuing inspections; or otherwise check that MT conducted appropriate training and supervision of its staff and/or used safe and proper plant and equipment.
The Court also made a finding of breach of contract against DPS.
Taking into account the non-delegable duty owed by DPS, and that MT had control of the workplace and system of work, liability was apportioned at 25% to DPS and 75% to MT. No finding of contributory negligence was made against the plaintiff, with the Court taking into account the plaintiff’s relative inexperience, the fact he was assigned an inexperienced co-worker and was provided inadequate supervision and training.
Although the Court accepted that the plaintiff had suffered an injury, it found that the plaintiff had exaggerated the ongoing effect of the injury on his functional capacity. In this regard, the Court referred to the fact that:
- The plaintiff spent much time travelling overseas from August 2022 until 2025 (11 trips), during which time he used a scooter, swam with whale sharks, spent time island hopping and used a zipline (none of which he disclosed to the medical experts).
- The plaintiff was capable of using an e-Scooter in 2022, and was involved in an accident.
- Since late 2021, the plaintiff had returned to the gym and as at the date of the trial attended 5-6 times a week, often participating in fairly heavy sessions.
The plaintiff’s independent medical evidence was based on his exaggerated reporting. As a result, the evidence obtained on behalf of the defendants was accepted on several key issues, most notably the plaintiff’s capacity to return to work and his need for future care. The plaintiff was awarded damages of $433,056.28 against DPS, and $490,429.05 against MT (prior to apportionment).
Implications for you
This case reinforces that it is difficult for an employer to completely discharge its non-delegable duty of care to employees, even in a labour hire scenario where the host employer has control over both the workplace and system of work. Labour hire employers should endeavour to implement a proactive approach to checking the systems put in place by host employers in an effort to meet the duty owed.
In addition, this decision is a pertinent reminder that even where credibility issues do not allow defendants to escape liability, the same can be used to cast doubt on the content of a plaintiff’s independent medical evidence, and substantially reduce an award for damages.
Singleton v Direct Personnel Services Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QSC 259
