QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION:
PARTIES:
Foord, Tracey Ann
Appellantv
Workers' Compensation Regulator
RespondentCASE NO:
WC/2024/45 PROCEEDING:
Appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:
30 January 2025 HEARING DATE:
28 October 2024
MEMBER:
HEARD AT:
McLennan IC
Brisbane
ORDERS:
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The Respondent's decision dated 13 February 2024 is set aside and substituted with a new decision that Mr Fludder was a 'worker' within the meaning of section 11 of Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).
3. The Appellant's application for compensation is remitted to WorkCover Queensland to be determined according to law.
4. The Respondent is to pay the Appellant's costs of the hearing, to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be subject to a further application to the Commission.
CATCHWORDS: WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION REGULATOR – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – whether a contract was validly formed between the parties – whether the appellant was a worker for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where the appellant was a 'contractor' – appeal allowed
LEGISLATION:
CASES:
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 11, s 108, sch 2, sch 6
Air Great Lakes Pty Ltd v KS Easter Holdings Pty Ltd [1989] 2 NSWLR 309
Baigorri v Workers Compensation Regulator [2024] ICQ 2
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Church v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] ICQ 031
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95
Koman v The Guitar Gym Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 195
Ribeiro v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 203
Scammell and Nephew Ltd v HC and JG Ouston [1941] AC 251
Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness (2000) 49 NSWLR 262
Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Mahaffey [2016] ICQ 010
Smith v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2022] QIRC 003
State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q-COMP and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447
SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 91 ALJR 936
The Queen v A2; The Queen v Magennis; The Queen v Vaziri (2019) 93 ALJR 1106
APPEARANCES: Mr G. J. Smart of Wallace & Wallace Lawyers for the Appellant.
Mr B. I. McMillan of counsel, directly instructed by the Respondent.
Reasons for Decision
[1]Ms Tracey Ann Foord ('the Appellant') appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Respondent') to confirm an earlier decision of WorkCover Queensland ('the Insurer') rejecting the Appellant's application for compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('the WCR Act').
[2]On 16 May 2023, the Appellant's fiancé,[1] Mr Barry Charles Fludder, suffered fatal injuries on the Cape Hillsborough property owned by Mr and Mrs Shea.
[1] T1-4, line 13.
[3]The primary question to be determined in…
Continue reading Foord v Workers' Compensation Regulator
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Content removed [2025] QIRC 27
- Case
- [2025] QIRC 27
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that arose involved interpreting the definition of a 'worker' under the Act and examining the nature of the contractual relationship between Mr Fludder and the respondent. The court considered whether the terms of the contract and the circumstances surrounding the relationship aligned with the common law principles of an employment relationship versus that of an independent contractor. The central question was whether Mr Fludder's control and integration into the respondent's operations were sufficient to classify him as a worker rather than an independent contractor.
In its reasoning, the court found that Mr Fludder's relationship with the respondent was more akin to that of an employee than an independent contractor. The court emphasised the level of control exercised by the respondent over Mr Fludder's work, the lack of genuine entrepreneurial risk-taking, and the integration of Mr Fludder into the respondent's business operations. These factors led the court to conclude that Mr Fludder should be classified as a 'worker' under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator was set aside. The court ordered that Mr Fludder's application for compensation be remitted to WorkCover Queensland for re-evaluation according to the law. Furthermore, the respondent was directed to pay the appellant's costs of the hearing.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The Respondent's decision dated 13 February 2024 is set aside and substituted with a new decision that Mr Fludder was a 'worker' within the meaning of section 11 of Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).
3. The Appellant's application for compensation is remitted to WorkCover Queensland to be determined according to law.
4. The Respondent is to pay the Appellant's costs of the hearing, to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be subject to a further 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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.