A recent decision of the District Court of Queensland has confirmed the distinction between a worker and a contractor and how this impacts an injured person’s entitlement to compensation under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act Qld (“the Act”)[1]
In this case, Mr Cagney, an experienced carpenter, was injured when he fell from a ladder while working on a job site.
He made an application for compensation with WorkCover Qld on the basis that he was an employee working under a contract and receiving income for the work as a PAYG (tax withholding) employee.
Mr Cagney was a self-employed builder of some 39 years. His practice was to charge for his services on an hourly rate, plus GST. He had agreed to work for the Defendant company, D & J Building Contractors Pty Ltd (“D & J”) for cash. The terms of his engagement with D & J were limited to a brief text message exchange that included the date, time and address of the job, including that it would be for one day, but little else. The ladder he used to access the roof belonged to D & J, but the rest of the tools he was using belonged to him. The ladder slid away from the roof, and Mr Cagney fell, injuring his ankle.
Mr Cagney’s claim was accepted by WorkCover during the statutory phase, meaning he was eligible to have his treatment costs reimbursed and receive weekly benefits if he was unable to work due to the injury. He may have also been entitled to receive lump sum compensation if he was assessed as having sustained a permanent impairment.
Mr Cagney subsequently brought a claim for common law damages against D & J, alleging that he was injured as a result of their negligence in providing him with a faulty ladder. However, WorkCover reversed their earlier position accepting that he was a worker under the Act and the trial judge agreed. This was because of the following features of his agreement to work for D & J:
- There was a contract for services between Mr Cagney and D & J, not a contract of service (employment);
- There was no intention that there be an ongoing relationship between them;
- There was no relationship of employment between them;
- There was an express agreement that Mr Cagney would be paid cash which would not be taxed. This was the opposite to the relationship Mr Cagney had argued had existed between him and D & J.
This finding meant that Mr Cagney’s claim was dismissed, even though the trial judge found that D & J ‘s actions in providing him with a faulty ladder had caused his injuries and they would have been liable to pay him damages had he been found to be their employee.
It is worth remembering that just because WorkCover accepts that someone is a worker during the statutory phase of an injured person’s claim for compensation, this does not mean that they cannot change their mind if that person brings a common law claim for damages.
This case emphasises the importance of the distinction between an employee and a contractor under the Act. It can have a huge impact on your entitlement to compensation and your options for bringing a claim. The trial judge considered that Mr Cagney may have been able to bring a claim for damages against D & J under a different piece of legislation.
Given there are strict time limits in personal injuries claims, it is critical to consult an experienced solicitor as soon as possible if you have been injured at work to ensure that you obtain advice about your options.
[1] Cagney v D&J Building Contractors Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 162
