Cagney v D&J Building Contractors Pty Ltd - [2024] QDC 162

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cagney v D&J Building Contractors Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 162

PARTIES:

SCOTT ANTHONY CAGNEY

(plaintiff)

v

D&J BUILDING CONTRACTORS PTY LTD

(defendant)

FILE NO:
ID38/2021

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

26 September 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Ipswich

HEARING DATE:

12, 13, 14, 15, 16 February 2023

JUDGE:

Horneman-Wren SC, DCJ

ORDER:

1. Claim dismissed.

2. The parties are to file written submission in respect of costs, if not agreed within fourteen days.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – WHO IS A WORKER OR EMPLOYEE – CONTRACT OF SERVICE OR CONTRACT FOR SERVICES – PARTICULAR CASES – OTHER CASES – where the plaintiff a trade qualified self-employed carpenter alleges he was engaged to perform ad hoc work for the defendant as a construction labourer – where the plaintiff alleges he was a “worker” as defined by the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where the plaintiff alleges he was an employee for the assessment of PAYG withholding – whether the plaintiff “worked under a contract” – where the plaintiff not found to be a “worker”

EMPLOYMENT LAW – EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP – ASCERTAINING EXISTENCE AND NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff was a self-employed builder – where the plaintiff agreed to perform “cashies” – where there was no discussion between the plaintiff and defendant as to rate of remuneration or by whom the remuneration was to be paid - whether a relationship or contract of employment existed between the plaintiff and the defendant – where no relationship or contract of employment in place

ESTOPPEL – ESTOPPEL BY JUDGMENT – JUDGMENT OR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION – GENERALLY – where WorkCover Queensland accepted the plaintiff’s application for statutory compensation – where the Workers’ Compensation Regulator confirmed the decision – where the plaintiff contends the elements for an estoppel are satisfied – whether the court can be satisfied that the decision of the Regulator has the requisite judicial nature or quality – where this element is not satisfied – whether finding that the plaintiff was a “worker” in acceptance of application for statutory compensation estopped defendant from denying the plaintiff was a “worker” in proceeding for damages – where no estoppel

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE, SCOPE OF DUTY AND SUBSEQUENT BREACH – where the plaintiff was exposed to a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm – where the risk was not insignificant –where the ladder provided by the defendant to the plaintiff to undertake the work was inappropriate for the task – where breach of duty is established

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE AND CAUSATION – CAUSATION – UNDER CIVIL LIABILITY LEGISLATION – GENERALLY – whether it is appropriate for the scope of liability to extend to the plaintiff’s injury – where the evidence supports responsibility being imposed on the defendant for the injury caused by the breach

DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN TORT – GENERALLY – assessment of common law damages under Part 9 of the Workers’…

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 Cagney v D&J Building Contractors Pty Ltd 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: [2024] QDC 162
Decision Date: 26 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cagney, a self-employed carpenter, sued D&J Building Contractors for damages, claiming that he was a worker under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) and that the defendant breached its duty of care by providing an unsuitable ladder, causing his injuries. D&J Building Contractors argued that Cagney was not their employee or worker but a self-employed tradesperson who performed ad hoc work on their projects. The court was required to determine whether Cagney was a worker, whether there was an estoppel preventing the defendant from denying this, and whether D&J Building Contractors breached its duty of care and caused Cagney’s injuries.

The court held that Cagney was not a worker as he was a self-employed builder engaged to perform ad hoc work and not under a contract of service. There was no discussion of remuneration or payment methods, and no employment relationship or contract existed. The court found that the decision by WorkCover Queensland to accept Cagney’s application for statutory compensation did not have the requisite judicial nature to create an estoppel. The court found D&J Building Contractors breached its duty of care by providing an inappropriate ladder, and this breach caused Cagney’s injuries. The evidence supported imposing liability on D&J Building Contractors for the injuries.

The court dismissed Cagney’s claims. The parties were directed to file written submissions regarding costs if not agreed upon within fourteen days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Claims dismissed.

2. The parties are to file written submission in respect of costs, if not agreed within fourteen days.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Cagney v D&J Building Contractors Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 162
PARTIES:	SCOTT ANTHONY CAGNEY (plaintiff) v D&J BUILDING CONTRACTORS PTY LTD (defendant)
FILE NO:	ID38/2021
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	26 September 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Ipswich
HEARING DATE:	12, 13, 14, 15, 16 February 2023
JUDGE:	Horneman-Wren SC, DCJ
ORDER:	1. Claim dismissed. 2. The parties are to file written submission in respect of costs, if not agreed within fourteen days.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – WHO IS A WORKER OR EMPLOYEE – CONTRACT OF SERVICE OR CONTRACT FOR SERVICES – PARTICULAR CASES – OTHER CASES – where the plaintiff a trade qualified self-employed carpenter alleges he was engaged to perform ad hoc work for the defendant as a construction labourer – where the plaintiff alleges he was a “worker” as defined by the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where the plaintiff alleges he was an employee for the assessment of PAYG withholding – whether the plaintiff “worked under a contract” – where the plaintiff not found to be a “worker” EMPLOYMENT LAW – EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP – ASCERTAINING EXISTENCE AND NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff was a self-employed builder – where the plaintiff agreed to perform “cashies” – where there was no discussion between the plaintiff and defendant as to rate of remuneration or by whom the remuneration was to be paid - whether a relationship or contract of employment existed between the plaintiff and the defendant – where no relationship or contract of employment in place ESTOPPEL – ESTOPPEL BY JUDGMENT – JUDGMENT OR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION – GENERALLY – where WorkCover Queensland accepted the plaintiff’s application for statutory compensation – where the Workers’ Compensation Regulator confirmed the decision – where the plaintiff contends the elements for an estoppel are satisfied – whether the court can be satisfied that the decision of the Regulator has the requisite judicial nature or quality – where this element is not satisfied – whether finding that the plaintiff was a “worker” in acceptance of application for statutory compensation estopped defendant from denying the plaintiff was a “worker” in proceeding for damages – where no estoppel TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE, SCOPE OF DUTY AND SUBSEQUENT BREACH – where the plaintiff was exposed to a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm – where the risk was not insignificant –where the ladder provided by the defendant to the plaintiff to undertake the work was inappropriate for the task – where breach of duty is established TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE AND CAUSATION – CAUSATION – UNDER CIVIL LIABILITY LEGISLATION – GENERALLY – whether it is appropriate for the scope of liability to extend to the plaintiff’s injury – where the evidence supports responsibility being imposed on the defendant for the injury caused by the breach DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN TORT – GENERALLY – assessment of common law damages under Part 9 of the Workers’…