Alley v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2025] QIRC 261

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Alley v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 261

PARTIES:

Kayle Clyde Alley
Appellant

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator
Respondent

CASE NO:
WC/2023/79

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:
30 September 2025

HEARING DATES:

26 November 2024
27 November 2024

MEMBER:

O'Connor VP

HEARD AT:
Cairns

ORDERS:

1.      The appeal is allowed.

2.      The review decision of 7 March 2023 be set aside.

3.      The Appellant's claim for workers' compensation be returned to WorkCover to be considered according to law.

4.      The Respondent pay the Appellant's costs of the hearing to be agreed or failing agreement to be the subject of an application to the Commission.

CATCHWORDS:
WORKERS' COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – PERSONS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION – WHO IS A WORKER OR EMPLOYEE – where the Appellant contracted with Global Aircraft Services Pty Ltd – where the Appellant's application for workers' compensation was rejected by WorkCover Queensland on the basis that the Appellant was not a 'worker' within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act2003 – where the Appellant sought review of the WorkCover Queensland decision by the Respondent – where the Respondent confirmed the WorkCover Queensland decision – where appeal by the Appellant against review decision of the Respondent – whether Appellant deemed to be a worker within the meaning of sch 2 pt 1 s 5 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act2003 – held that the Appellant is a worker within the meaning of sch 2 pt 1 s 5 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act2003 – Respondent's review decision set aside – parties to be heard as to costs

LEGISLATION:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 11,

CASES:
Attorney-General (NSW) v The Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd (1952) 85 CLR 237

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker (2014) 253 CLR 169

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd (2022) 275 CLR 165

Damevski v Giudice (2003) 133 FCR 438

Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 21

Marshall v Whittaker's Building Supply Co (1963) 109 CLR 210

Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Blue Wren Holdings Pty Ltd [2014] ICQ 11

Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16

Swift Placements Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (2000) 96 IR 69

WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato (2021) 271 CLR 456

ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek (2022) 275 CLR 254

APPEARANCES:
Mr M. Horvath and Ms K. Milana of counsel instructed by Turner Freeman Lawyers for the Appellant

Mr S. Gray of counsel instructed directly by the Workers' Compensation Regulator for the Respondent

Reasons for Decision

The sole issue for determination in these proceedings is whether the Appellant, Kayle Clyde Alley, is a 'worker' for the purposes of s 11 the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act2003 ('WCR Act').

The Facts

Global Aircraft Services Pty Ltd ('GAS') is a company operating a labour hire business for various customers…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Alley v Workers' Compensation Regulator and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QIRC 261
Decision Date: 30 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Alley v Workers' Compensation Regulator involved the Appellant, who had entered into a contract with Global Aircraft Services Pty Ltd (GAS). The Appellant's application for workers' compensation was rejected by WorkCover Queensland on the basis that he was not considered a 'worker' within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The Appellant sought a review of this decision by the Workers' Compensation Regulator, which upheld the initial decision. Subsequently, the Appellant appealed this review decision. The central legal issue was whether the Appellant could be deemed a worker under section 5 of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.

The court determined that the label used by the parties to describe the Appellant's relationship with GAS did not conclusively define the nature of the relationship. The court had to assess whether the relationship was one of service or a contract for service. The Appellant was engaged by GAS, a labour hire agency, to supply his labour exclusively to Jet Aviation. His obligation to work for Jet Aviation, as directed by GAS, and his entitlement to payment were integral to GAS's business model. The Appellant's work was subject to strict compliance with GAS's and Jet Aviation's procedures and policies, and he was under their direction and supervision. The court concluded that the Appellant was under a contract of service, not a contract for service, as his work was integral to GAS's business and he was not in any meaningful sense operating his own business. Therefore, the Appellant qualified as a worker under the Act.

In light of the findings, the court set aside the review decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator. The Appellant's claim for workers' compensation was returned to WorkCover Queensland for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The court also ordered that the Respondent, the Workers' Compensation Regulator, pay the Appellant's costs of the hearing, to be agreed upon by the parties or, if agreement could not be reached, to be the subject of a subsequent application to the Commission.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The review decision of 7 March 2023 be set aside.

3. The Appellant's claim for workers' compensation be returned to WorkCover to be considered according to law.

4. The Respondent pay the Appellant's costs of the hearing to be agreed or failing agreement to be the subject of an application to the Commission.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Notwithstanding the description of the Appellant as an "Independent Contractor", the 'label' chosen by the parties to describe the relationship is not determinative of the characterisation; that is for the Commission to determine as a matter of law.Conclusion The evidence is that the Appellant was engaged by GAS, a labour hire agency under a contract to supply nothing but his labour to a single customer, Jet Aviation. The Appellant's obligation to work for GAS' customer, and his entitlement to be paid for that work was central to GAS' business of supplying labour. The Appellant was required to supply his labour for the duration required by Jet Aviation. Importantly, when supplying his labour, the Appellant was to strictly comply with GAS' and Jet Aviation's procedures, processes and policies. Moreover, he was to be provided direction and supervision by Jet Aviation. The control of the Appellant was such that there was no need for a direct contract between the Appellant and Jet Aviation. The right of control of the Appellant was an asset of GAS' labour hire business. The work carried out by the Appellant was for the benefit of both GAS and Jet Aviation. By supplying his labour to GAS, the Appellant was at the same time supplying his labour to Jet Aviation for the purposes of Jet Aviation's business. It could not be said that the Appellant was in any meaningful sense in business for himself. The Appellant's work was dependent upon and subservient to GAS's business. It follows therefore, that the relationship between the Appellant and GAS is properly characterised as a contract of service and not a contract for service. For the reasons expressed above, the Appellant is for the purposes of s 11(2) and sch 2 pt 1 s 5 of the WCR Act a "worker". The Appellant raised an alternative argument in reliance on s 11(2) and sch 2 pt 1 s 3 of the WCR Act. However, in light of my conclusion reached above it is not necessary for me to consider that submission. I make the following orders:1.The appeal be allowed. 2.The review decision of 7 March 2023 be set aside. 3.The Appellant's claim for workers' compensation be returned to WorkCover to be considered according to law. 4.The Respondent pay the Appellant's costs of the hearing to be agreed or failing agreement to be the subject of an application.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Alley v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 261
PARTIES:	Kayle Clyde Alley Appellant v Workers' Compensation Regulator Respondent
CASE NO:	WC/2023/79
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	30 September 2025
HEARING DATES:	26 November 2024 27 November 2024
MEMBER:	O'Connor VP
HEARD AT:	Cairns
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The review decision of 7 March 2023 be set aside. 3. The Appellant's claim for workers' compensation be returned to WorkCover to be considered according to law. 4. The Respondent pay the Appellant's costs of the hearing to be agreed or failing agreement to be the subject of an application to the Commission.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – PERSONS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION – WHO IS A WORKER OR EMPLOYEE – where the Appellant contracted with Global Aircraft Services Pty Ltd – where the Appellant's application for workers' compensation was rejected by WorkCover Queensland on the basis that the Appellant was not a 'worker' within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act2003 – where the Appellant sought review of the WorkCover Queensland decision by the Respondent – where the Respondent confirmed the WorkCover Queensland decision – where appeal by the Appellant against review decision of the Respondent – whether Appellant deemed to be a worker within the meaning of sch 2 pt 1 s 5 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act2003 – held that the Appellant is a worker within the meaning of sch 2 pt 1 s 5 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act2003 – Respondent's review decision set aside – parties to be heard as to costs
LEGISLATION:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 11,
CASES:	Attorney-General (NSW) v The Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd (1952) 85 CLR 237 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker (2014) 253 CLR 169 Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd (2022) 275 CLR 165 Damevski v Giudice (2003) 133 FCR 438 Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 21 Marshall v Whittaker's Building Supply Co (1963) 109 CLR 210 Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Blue Wren Holdings Pty Ltd [2014] ICQ 11 Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 Swift Placements Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority (NSW) (2000) 96 IR 69 WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato (2021) 271 CLR 456 ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek (2022) 275 CLR 254
APPEARANCES:	Mr M. Horvath and Ms K. Milana of counsel instructed by Turner Freeman Lawyers for the Appellant Mr S. Gray of counsel instructed directly by the Workers' Compensation Regulator for the Respondent