Milivoj Stekovic v Polyseal Waterproofing Technologies Pty Limited and Contexx Pty Ltd

Milivoj Stekovic commenced proceedings against Polyseal Waterproofing Technologies Pty Limited and Contexx Pty Ltd, seeking compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) for injuries sustained during the course of his employment. The dispute revolves around the definition of ‘worker’ and the applicability of the Act to the claimant’s situation. Stekovic was engaged by Polyseal, a waterproofing contractor, to work on a project for Contexx, the principal entity. Stekovic was injured while performing tasks related to this project, and the primary issue is whether he qualifies as a worker under the Act, thereby entitling him to compensation.

The legal issues central to this case include the interpretation of the term ‘worker’ under the Act and the applicability of the workers compensation provisions to the claimant’s circumstances. The court needed to determine whether Stekovic, as an employee of Polyseal, could claim compensation from Contexx, the principal entity, or if his employer, Polyseal, was solely responsible. Additionally, the court considered the nature of the relationship between the parties and the extent to which the principal could be held liable for the injuries sustained by Stekovic.

In examining the nature of the relationship between the parties, the court looked at the contractual arrangements and the control exercised by Contexx over the project and the work performed by Stekovic. The court concluded that the definition of ‘worker’ extended to include individuals like Stekovic, who were engaged by a contractor but performed work for a principal entity. The court found that the principal, in this case, exercised sufficient control over the work to warrant liability under the Act. The court further held that the principal entity, by virtue of its control over the project and the work, could be held liable for the injuries sustained by Stekovic.

The court granted the application for arbitration, finding that Stekovic qualified as a worker under the Act and that Contexx could be held liable for the injuries sustained. This decision ensures that Stekovic is entitled to compensation for his injuries, despite being employed by a subcontractor, thereby extending the protection of the Act to situations where the principal exercises significant control over the work performed.