Alchin, Rodney Ray v Geoffrey Michael Pease & Guiseppina, Santina Pease Trading as Tully General Carriers Carpentaria Transport Pty Limited (ACN 009 683 452) Trading as North Queensland Express, Workcover Queensland

In the case of Alchin v Pease and Carpentaria Transport Pty Limited, the plaintiff, Rodney Ray Alchin, sought damages from the defendants, Geoffrey Michael Pease and Guiseppina Santina Pease trading as Tully General Carriers and Carpentaria Transport Pty Limited trading as North Queensland Express, for injuries sustained during the course of his employment. The plaintiff was an employee of the first defendant, Tully General Carriers, and was engaged in the transportation of goods from Melbourne to Cairns when he was injured. The primary issue before the court was whether the third defendant, WorkCover Queensland, was liable to indemnify the second defendant, Carpentaria Transport Pty Limited, for the plaintiff's injuries. The court examined the contractual arrangements between Tully General Carriers and Carpentaria Transport Pty Limited, as well as the statutory provisions governing worker's compensation and indemnity.

The court had to determine the scope of indemnity provided under Section 47 of the Workers' Compensation Act 1990. This section declared the principal, in this case, Carpentaria Transport Pty Limited, to be the employer of the workers used in carrying out the work under the contract. It also provided that the cover of a policy maintained by the principal with the board extended to indemnify the principal against the principal's legal liability to pay damages in respect of injury to any such worker while used in carrying out work for which the contract is entered into, or any part of that work. The court considered whether the plaintiff's injury fell within the scope of the indemnity provided by the Workers' Compensation Act 1990. The Third Party argued that the indemnity should not extend to cover injuries sustained during the unloading of goods at the Second Defendant's depot in Cairns, as the plaintiff was not actively engaged in the work for which the contract was made at the time of his injury. The court needed to decide if the injury sustained by the plaintiff was incidental or ancillary to the work contracted for, and therefore not covered by the indemnity provisions.

The court held that the legislative policy expressed in Section 47 was to ensure that a worker injured in the circumstances for which it provided would have access to the statutory fund to satisfy a judgment where he/she had been injured by the negligence of his/her employer's contractor or someone for whom the contractor is responsible. The court found that the plaintiff should be regarded as engaged in the work the subject of the contract while he was present at the Second Defendant's premises for the purposes of unloading the goods and receiving the gates back onto the trailer in order to secure them. The court concluded that the plaintiff was a worker used in carrying out work in performance of the contract between Tully General Carriers and Carpentaria Transport Pty Limited, and therefore, the plaintiff sustained his injury "whilst used in carrying out work" for which the relevant contract had been entered into. The court found that the Second Defendant was entitled to be indemnified by the Third Party against its legal liability to pay damages to the plaintiff.

The court ordered that the Third Party indemnify the Second Defendant against the Second Defendant's legal liability to pay damages to the plaintiff in respect of personal injuries sustained by him on 22 January 1991. The court also granted the parties liberty to apply. This decision ensures that the Second Defendant is indemnified by the Third Party for the plaintiff's injuries, in line with the legislative intent of providing indemnity for principals and access to the statutory fund for injured workers.