Singleton v Direct Personnel Services Pty Ltd - [2025] QSC 259

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Singleton v Direct Personnel Services Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QSC 259

PARTIES:

LUCAS JOHN SINGLETON

(plaintiff)

v
DIRECT PERSONNEL SERVICES PTY LTD ABN 19 003 606 700

(first defendant)
AND

MINERAL TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD ABN 52 105 309 260

(second defendant)

FILE NO:

SC 218 of 2022

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 October 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27 August 2025

JUDGE:

Smith J

ORDER:

1.   Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $433,056.28 (inclusive of the WorkCover refund of $81,276.60).

2.   Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $490,429.05 (inclusive of the WorkCover refund of $81,276.60).

3. Pursuant to section 6(c) of the Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld), the first defendant recover contribution from the second defendant in the sum of $324,792.21, being 75% of the judgment against the first defendant.

4.   I will hear the parties on the question of costs.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – Particular defendants – employers – where the plaintiff alleges he was injured in a workplace accident – where the plaintiff worked for a labour hire company – where the plaintiff was injured in the workplace of the host employer – whether each of the defendants breached the duty of care owed to the plaintiff – extent of the duty of care owed – whether plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence – whether the employer liable or whether the host employer liable – the degree of contribution as between the defendants

DAMAGES – whether the plaintiff sustained a back injury and consequent psychiatric injury – whether the plaintiff exaggerated the effect of the injury on his functional capacity – whether aggravation of pre-existing condition - quantum of damages

Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld) ss 6, 7
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) s 19

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 305B, 305C, 305D, 305E, 306N, 306O, 306P
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld) schedule 14

Astley v AusTrust Ltd [1999] HCA 6; (1999) 197 CLR 1, cited

Bankstown Foundary Pty Ltd v Braistina [1986] HCA 20;

(1986) 160 CLR 301, applied

Cameron v Foster [2010] QSC 372, cited

Chapman v Hearse [1961] HCA 46; (1961) 106 CLR 112, cited

Czatyrtko v Edith Cowan University [2005] HCA 14; (2005)

79 ALJR 832, applied

Fox v Wood [1981] HCA 41; (1981) 148 CLR 438, applied

Griffith v State of Queensland [2011] QCA 57; [2012] 2 Qd R

532, cited

Hays Specialist Recruitment (Australia) Pty Ltd v Carey-

Schofield [2025] QCA 161, applied

Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298, cited

Kerle v BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd [2016] QSC 304; (2016) 262 IR 381, considered

Kondis v State Transport Authority [1984] HCA 61; (1984) 154 CLR 672, applied
Liftronic Pty Ltd v Unver [2001] HCA 24; (2001) 75 ALJR 867, applied
Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 20; (1990) 169 CLR 638, applied

March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506, applied

Marketform Managing Agency Ltd v Ashcroft Super IGA

Orange Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 36, considered

Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission [1995]

HCA 5; (1995) 182 CLR 1, applied

Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000]

HCA 61; (2000) 205 CLR 254, applied

McLean v Tedman [1984] HCA 60; (1984) 155 CLR 306,

applied

McLean’s Roylen Cruises Pty Ltd v McEwan [1984] HCA 43;

(1984) 58 ALJR 42, considered

Parry v Woolworths [2009] QCA 26; [2010] 1 Qd R 1, cited

Peebles v WorkCover Queensland [2021] QCA 21, applied

Prasad v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 147, cited
Purkess v Crittenden [1965] HCA 34; (1965) 114 CLR 164, cited
Qantas Airways Ltd v Fisher [2014] QCA 329, applied
Robinson v Fig Tree Pocket Equestrian Club Inc [2005] QCA 271, applied
Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 142, considered
Spencer v Downie and Anor [2019] QSC 98, considered

Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 1;

(1986) 160 CLR 16, applied

Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2025]

HCA 34; (2025) 99 ALJR 1348, applied

Strong v Woolworths Ltd [2012] HCA 5; (2012) 246 CLR 182,

Applied

Super Pty Ltd v SJP Formwork (Aust) Pty Ltd (1992) 29

NSWLR 549, considered

Swain v Waverley MC [2005] HCA 4; (2005) 220 CLR 517, applied
Tabet v Gett [2010] HCA 12; (2010) 240 CLR 537, cited
Tapp v Australian Bushman’s Campdraft & Rodeo Association Limited [2022] HCA 11; (2022) 273 CLR 454, applied
Thompson v Woolworths (Qld) Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 19; (2005) 221 CLR 234, applied
TNT Australia Pty Ltd v Christie [2003] NSWCA 47; (2003) 65 NSWLR 1, applied
Todorovic v Waller [1981] HCA 72; (1981) 150 CLR 402, applied
Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd [1964] HCA 29; (1964) 112 CLR 316, applied
Wallace v Kam [2013] HCA 19; (2013) 250 CLR 375, applied
Watts v Rake [1960] HCA 58; (1960) 108 CLR 158, applied
Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon [2003] HCA 48; (2003) 200 ALR 447, applied
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12; (1980) 146 CLR 40, applied

COUNSEL:

Mr B Charrington KC with Dr K Roche for the plaintiff
Ms S McNeil for the first defendant
Mr M Hickey OAM KC with Ms A Crawford for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

Attwood Marshall for the plaintiff
Hopgood Ganim Lawyers for the first defendant
Meridian Lawyers for the second defendant

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. PLEADINGS

(a) Statement of claim

(b) Defence of First Defendant

3. PLAINTIFF’S CASE

(a) Mr Singleton

4. FIRST DEFENDANT

(a) Mr Ferguson

5. SECOND DEFENDANT

(a) Mr Keough

(b) Ms Spaic

6. MEDICAL EVIDENCE

(a) Plaintiff Case

(i) Dr Todman
(ii) Dr Foxcroft
(iii) Mrs Coles

(b) First Defendant

(i) Dr Labrom

(i) Dr Tuffley
(ii) Dr Chalk

7. SUBMISSIONS

(a) Plaintiff

(b) First Defendant

(c) Second Defendant

8. FINDINGS

9. LIABILITY

(a) Second Defendant

(b) First Defendant

10. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

11. CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY

12. QUANTUM

13. SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

This is a claim by the plaintiff for $1,274,209.13 for damages for negligence and/or breach of contract arising from injuries he sustained in a workplace accident. At the time of the accident, he was removing a fibreglass spiral (used for mineral separation in mining) from a mould.[1] The spiral was resting on a rail. The spiral came off the rail and the plaintiff flexed forward, thereby suffering an L4/5disc protrusion. He later underwent surgery. It is common ground between the expert witnesses that the plaintiff has a whole person impairment attributable to the accident of about 10 per cent.
[1]Variously described as a mould, pattern or trough.
For the reasons which follow, I find that the plaintiff has proved each of the defendants to have been negligent and the first defendant to have also breached the contract of employment.
I have however found the plaintiff has exaggerated the effect of the injury on his functional capacity and I have found that he has a residual working capacity. On these questions I preferred the defence expert witnesses to those called by the plaintiff.
I have assessed the plaintiff’s damages as against his employer, the first defendant, in the sum of $433,056.28 (inclusive of the WorkCover refund of $81,276.60).
I have assessed the plaintiff’s damages as against his host employer, the second defendant, in the sum of $490,429.05 (inclusive of the WorkCover refund of $81,276.60).
I find that the first defendant is 25 per cent responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries and the second defendant 75 per cent responsible.
PLEADINGS
Statement of claim
The plaintiff, a 40-year-old man, was injured at work on 11 July 2019. At the time, he was employed by the first defendant (DPS), a labour hire company, and he was working at the factory of the second defendant (MT).
In his amended statement of claim, the plaintiff alleges that he was tasked with separating a fibreglass spiral from a mould (or pattern). This task involved two workers, the plaintiff and a co-worker. The plaintiff alleges that while he was doing this task, the spiral fell to the floor which jolted him forwards. The plaintiff and the co-worker lifted the spiral back onto the rail. It is alleged the accident caused immediate pain to his back. It is alleged the plaintiff reported the injury to his supervisor but was told to go back to work. He continued working with the spirals, and shortly thereafter another falling and jolting accident occurred. He was then instructed to go back to work, but in a different role. The plaintiff alleges that the pain in his back and shoulders increased, and he was then told to use Deep Heat and see a GP.
The plaintiff alleged that he suffered the following injuries:
(a)a left L4/5 disc protrusion and/or disc prolapse on the left side with an L5 nerve root compression requiring surgery;
(b)scarring;
(c)adjustment disorder; and
(d)mixed depression and anxious mood and/or major depressive disorder.
The plaintiff alleged that his employer, DPS, was negligent as:
(a)It failed to provide and maintain an adequately safe system of work by allowing them to lift the pattern when it was unstable and an excessive weight.
(b)It failed to install appropriate plant and equipment, namely rails that were separated by a distance which would prevent the pattern falling.
(c)It failed to adequately inspect and identify a system which would identify the hazard.
(d)It failed to conduct an adequate risk assessment.
(e)It failed to provide adequate instruction.
(f)It failed to provide an adequate warning as to the risk.
(g)It failed to comply with the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (WHSA) and associated codes and regulations by failing to ensure the health and safety of the plaintiff at work.
Alternatively, it is alleged that the injury was caused by a breach of contract-namely a breach of the implied term to provide the plaintiff with a safe workplace and system of work.
The plaintiff also alleged that his host employer, MT, was negligent for similar reasons. He says that the second defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of the co-worker and the supervisor.
The plaintiff alleged that his injuries were caused by breach of contract and/or negligence and claims $1,274,209.13 in damages.
First defendant
In its defence, the first defendant admits it was the employer of the plaintiff. It also admits that it provided the plaintiff’s services to the second defendant and admits that this commenced on 9 June 2019. It denies the allegations of negligence and/or breach of contract, stating it did not owe the obligations the plaintiff has pleaded and was not the insurer of the plaintiff’s safety. It also denies that it was negligent.
Second defendant
In its amended defence, the second defendant admits that Downer EDA Services Pty Ltd (Downer), including the second defendant, entered into a labour hire service agreement (LHA) with the first defendant, commencing 1 March 2015. It says that the first defendant was the plaintiff’s employer, not the second defendant, and it was a term of the LHA that the first defendant was engaged to provide services as an independent contractor and was responsible for the plaintiff’s safety. It says the plaintiff was working at the second defendant’s premises pursuant to the LHA. It says the first defendant had the primary responsibility for the day-to-day management of the plaintiff. It admits the first defendant owed the plaintiff a non-delegable duty of care, but the second defendant did not, as it was not the plaintiff’s employer.
As to the allegations of negligence, it is admitted the plaintiff was undertaking duties at the second defendant’s premises in Carrara on 11 July 2019, but denies the allegations made by the plaintiff as to the mechanism of the accident, referring to alleged previous inconsistent versions.
It is also alleged that the plaintiff had pre-existing injuries. The second defendant denies the allegations of negligence and said the plaintiff did receive training as to the relevant procedures and it was the first defendant’s responsibility to carry out work site visits to ensure safety compliance. It alleges it did have a safe and appropriate system of work and the task engaged in by the plaintiff was not unsafe. It is further alleged the plaintiff was responsible for his own injuries.
EVIDENCE
I have had the opportunity of observing the witnesses and that has assisted me in reaching my decision. I also record that just because I do not believe a witness about one thing, does not mean I reject all of their evidence.
I will make some observations as I examine the evidence of the witnesses in this matter. When I make such observations, I have had regard to all of the evidence and the submissions made.
PLAINTIFF’S CASE
Plaintiff
Evidence in chief
The plaintiff was born on 29 June 1985 and is presently 40 years of age. He left school halfway through year nine and claims he is not good at reading and writing.
He started work as a factory hand and then completed a four year apprenticeship as a fabricating engineer. He has had a number of personal relationships and has three children.
Prior to the incident he suffered an injury to his left wrist and thumb in 2010 and had about four to five months off work. After getting his strength back this did not pose a problem.
He has a reasonable work history. He worked for Astrill for four years; Tyco Water for two years;[2] Ascot Foundry;[3] Esco Foundry;[4] Weir Engineering;[5] Qalcast Gold Coast;[6] Superlock as an assembler[7] and then he started at MT in 2019.
[2]This involved moulding, physical work and lifting up to 20kgs.
[3]This involved moulding and was very physical with lifting up to 50kg.
[4]This involved moulding but was lower in physicality.
[5]This was for mining equipment and involved low physicality.
[6]This was extremely physical with lifting up to 50kg.
[7]This was heavy work.
The plaintiff found the job through Seek employment and was employed by DPS but was contracted out to work at MT at Carrara. He started the job in May 2019. He didn’t recall any training given to him at DPS. At MT, there was a training movie and a walk through before he started. As regards to the task in question, someone showed him what to do for a day and then he took over.
The task Mr Singleton was doing at the time of the injury involved assembling a spiral. The purpose of the spiral is to separate sand from minerals. Fibreglass is sprayed onto a mould/pattern, and once the fibreglass has hardened it is necessary to separate this pattern from each spiral. Each item weighs about 100 kilograms. One man holds it still while the other man twists the spiral off the pattern. They do eight each morning. The end of the spiral (depicted in Exhibit 2) was resting on a rail. The PVC pipe at the end sat on the rail and was about 200 millimetres long.

Exhibit 2 example photograph of a spiral on a rail
Exhibit 28A example photograph of a worker with a spiral on a rail

On 11 July 2019, Mr Singleton started work at 5am and was engaged in separating the spiral from the patterns. The incident happened around 5.30am. He was working with a new co-worker who had started on the Monday. The co-worker was holding the other end of the spiral and the plaintiff was separating the spiral from the mould. The spiral fell off the side of the railing because it was not being held straight by the co-worker. If it is not held straight the overhang is less and it does not easily stay on the rails.[8]
[8]Transcript day 1 page 35.36.
It fell off with great force and the plaintiff went with it as it fell, and he immediately felt extreme pain in his lower back.[9] He held onto it. It happened very quickly. The item fell just under a metre, from waist level to the floor. He was jolted when he held onto it.
[9]Transcript day 1 page 36.35.
He had seen this happen about a half a dozen times previously in the six week period.[10] They lifted it back onto the rail. He did this with extreme difficulty and felt extreme pain in his lower back.
[10]Transcript day 1 page 36.45.
He did not recall if the spiral was damaged. He felt extreme pain.[11] He did not recall any instructions being given as to how to avoid this risk or what to do after it had fallen off.[12]
[11]Transcript day 1 page 37.20.
[12]Transcript day 1 page 37.30.
He told his supervisor Paul what happened. Paul simply told him to be careful and to continue working.[13] He went back to doing the same task and it happened again. On this occasion, he went with it to start with but did not go entirely with it after it fell. He let go of it and it hit the floor.[14]
[13]Transcript day 1 page 37.42.
[14]Transcript day 1 page 38.30.
He told Paul again but does not recall what Paul said. He then started doing another task by putting washers on bolts.[15] He continued in pain and told Paul this and he couldn’t continue. He was told to stand in the sun and Paul put some deep heat on his back.[16] However, the pain did not improve, and Paul took him to a general practitioner in Southport at about 9am.[17] He was examined and he was given a certificate for absence from work for three days.[18] At this stage, he was in extreme pain and the pain was in his lower back and his left leg.[19]
[15]Transcript day 1 page 39.1.
[16]Transcript day 1 page 39.25.
[17]Transcript day 1 page 39.25.
[18]Transcript day 1 page 40.10.
[19]Transcript day 1 page 40.25. This is consistent with the entry in Exhibit 55 (the notes of Dr Simonds).
Mr Singleton later went to his own GP in Tweed and was given a further certificate for absence from work.[20] He had an MRI and was given the results of the scan which showed that he had a bulging disc.[21]
[20]Transcript day 1 page 41.1.
[21]Transcript day 1 page 41. This is consistent with the MRI 2 August 2019 – see Exhibit 54 page 16.
He was then referred to a spinal surgeon Dr Schwindack at the Pindara Private Hospital. Dr Schwindack recommended he undergo regular physiotherapy and that surgery was a last resort. The plaintiff underwent the physiotherapy, but this did not help. A nerve root block was tried, and this only gave slight relief.[22]
[22]Transcript day 1 page 42.25.
As a consequence, the doctor recommended surgery.[23] A discectomy was conducted on 2 October 2019. After the surgery, the left leg pain disappeared but constant pain remained in his back. The surgery had little effect on his lower back pain. At worst, it was nine out of ten in terms of pain.[24]
[23]Transcript day 1 page 42.30.
[24]Transcript day 1 page 43.
At the time of his injury, he had been living with his partner Carly at Coolangatta for about a year. Between the injury and surgery, he had problems with his care and was “useless.” He was assisted with showering, dressing and meals by Carly. He couldn’t lift some objects. He used a walking stick. Prior to the injury, they shared the tasks equally. Prior to the injury he used to drive, but after it he couldn’t, and Carly would do this also.[25]
[25]Transcript day 1 pages 44-45.
They separated in September 2019 because of his physical condition and mental state.[26] He moved to his uncle’s place at Coolangatta and could shower but was helped to dress by his uncle. His uncle did the cooking and cleaning and drove for him. He tried to go back to the beach, but he did not do this often. He continued going to the physiotherapist and his GP.[27]
[26]Transcript day 1 page 45.35.
[27]Transcript day 1 page 46.
Whilst he used the walking stick between the injury and surgery, after the surgery he used the stick to get out of bed and get up from the toilet. Before the surgery he could not bend or squat. He could lift some items from a benchtop. He was in hospital for about seven days after the surgery and then returned at his uncle’s place.[28]
[28]Transcript day 1 page 47.

A few friends helped with meals and shopping and the like. He did no cleaning, and someone helped him with the laundry. Before the surgery, he was not good at walking up and down stairs but this improved after the surgery. After the surgery he continued receiving physiotherapy about three times a week. WorkCover funded this. He said he was on WorkCover benefits until June 2020.[29]
[29]Transcript day 1 pages 48-49.
The physiotherapy did not relieve the pain much. Post surgery the pain has remained. He told the doctor he had not recovered.[30]
[30]Transcript day 1 page 49.45.
Since the treatment by Dr Schwindack, Mr Singleton has been to a number of different GP’s for pain relief and has been on a health care plan. He is taking medication including Lyrica and pain killers. Anti-inflammatories did not work. He stopped physiotherapy about two weeks ago. He was going fortnightly at that time.[31]
[31]Transcript day 1 pages 50-51.
He was tried using an osteopath and chiropractor. The osteopath was better than physiotherapy. The chiropractor has given most relief. He has been going there fortnightly and pays for it himself.[32]
[32]Transcript day 1 page 51.40-52.25.
At one stage he was seeing the chiropractor three days a week. After the weekly benefit from WorkCover stopped in June 2020, he applied to Centrelink and was placed on a Disability Support Pension (DSP). He has also had a Total and Permanently Disabled (TPD) Super lump sum payout of $180,000 and weekly payments ($20,000 per year). He didn’t follow through with an application to NDIS.[33]
[33]Transcript day 1 page 53.
He also tried an alternative remedy with an old man in Indonesia in August 2022.[34] He had been to Indonesia a few times since the incident happened.[35] He admitted posting some photographs on Facebook from Bali, but they were photographs taken in 2017.[36]
[34]Transcript day 1 page 54.5.
[35]Transcript day 1 page 54.10.
[36]Transcript day 1 page 54.25.
Mr Singleton also uses heat packs and replaces them every few months.[37]
[37]Transcript day 1 page 54.35.
He said the condition plateaued in 2023 and it hasn’t improved or worsened.[38] He suffers pain everyday which varies from 2 out of 10 to 9 out of 10. The flareups are monthly. The pain varies during the day. If he overdoes something it makes the pain worse.[39]
[38]Transcript day 1 page 54.45.
[39]Transcript day 1 page 55.
He has lived with his housemate Joe Fuller for four years and Joe does most of the household tasks. Mr Singleton tries to pull his weight, but Joe does the larger share. He finds making his bed particularly difficult. He did have a relationship with a woman named Petra for 18 months and they lived together for 12 months. During that time, she assisted him with showering, dressing, meals, cleaning etc. She also drove him at one stage. He admitted he had returned to shopping daily at Coolangatta. His normal day involves watching tv, watching social media, walking, having lunch, going to the gym, sitting at home and playing chess. Before the injury he played sports, including rugby league, AFL, soccer, basketball, tennis and surfing. He hasn’t tried surfing since the injury and will not be able to do this. He used to surf daily.[40]
[40]Transcript day 1 pages 55-58.
He goes to the gym and uses the cable machine for upper body strength. Before the injury, he used to do a full body workout including legs and back and he now does that workout very rarely. He follows the advice of an exercise physiologist and physiotherapist when he goes to the gym and admits he can overdo it.[41]
[41]Transcript day 1 pages 58-59.
Mr Singleton also has a number of mental health issues. He admitted going to the psychologist a couple of times before the injury because of relationship difficulties, but since the injury he has felt depressed and feels poor about himself with accompanying dark thoughts. He started seeing a psychologist or psychiatrist in Tweed Heads weekly, but it did not help. He then changed to Daniel Murphy whom he saw weekly for two years. This was covered by WorkCover and a mental health plan. It was helpful to a degree.[42] He still feels quite useless. He has tried socialising. He was good at socialising before the injury but since it he has been self-conscious. He did drink alcohol before the injury but since tends to drink too much and his usage has increased. He also admitted dabbling in cocaine.[43] Exhibit 3 is the care schedule.
[42]Transcript day 1 pages 60-61.
[43]Transcript day 1 pages 61-63.
As to his lifting capacity, he could not do any of the jobs he did prior to the injury.[44] Since the injury, he has done a private investigator’s course but he has issues with reading because of a poor attention span and does not think he could work in that occupation. He is not very good at computers and has never worked in a sales job. He also does not like dealing with members of the public.[45]
[44]Transcript day 1 page 65.10.
[45]Transcript day 1 pages 65-66.
Medicare has paid for many of his treatments, but he has funded the others. Exhibit 4 is the travel schedule.
Before the injury, he felt good about life but does not now. He is unable to do many things that he could before the injury including surfing and playing with his children. He enjoyed his job as a fabricator, and he feels as though he is not worth anything now. He described his activities with his children. He doesn’t see his two younger daughters now since a falling out with the mother. He used to enjoy travelling overseas to Indonesia and Singapore, but travel is hard now and he can’t surf or hike up volcanoes.[46]
[46]Transcript day 1 pages 68-70.
His appearance and self-worth are a big issue and he turned to alcohol or tried to socialise. This is why he goes to the gym, for his mental state. He doesn’t have a plan for the future. Before the injury he intended to marry and get a house, but he believes this is lost to him now.[47]
[47]Transcript day 1 page 70.
Mr Singleton described how he had sexual problems after the injury and used Viagra for assistance. He has tried to stay positive and has some work interests, for example becoming a sound technician for a band.[48]
[48]Transcript day 1 page 71.
Cross-examination by the first defendant DPS
In cross-examination by the first defendant, Mr Singleton agreed that there was an induction when he arrived at MT.[49] He was shown exhibit C for identification but did not recall the modules referred to therein. He was also shown Exhibit 5 which was the Safe Work procedure (SWP) log and admitted signing that. He said training was given by MT. He was given a buddy who showed him how to do the demoulding task. He also agreed that he attended toolbox talks first thing in the mornings and he could raise issues there. This is where he met the co-worker who was with him at the time of the injury.[50]
[49]Transcript day 1 page 74.25.
[50]Transcript day 1 page 75-77.
He agreed that it was the managers of MT who ran these meetings.[51] Shane Hay was a manager. Butch and Paul would also run the toolbox meetings.[52]
[51]Transcript day 1 page 77.32.
[52]Transcript day 1 page 78.5.
Mr Singleton agreed that he reported the injury to Paul who told him to keep working even though he was still in pain.[53] He then was placed on the task of placing screws on washers. He was then taken to a doctor. Paul drove his car home because he could not drive.[54]
[53]Transcript day 1 page 79.10.
[54]Transcript day 1 page 79.45.
He admitted that prior to the injury he had seen a psychologist for relationship issues.[55] He said he had played a lot of AFL which he stopped in 2014. He admitted during his apprenticeship he went to TAFE and did assignments and reading. Prior to working at MT, he had worked driving a forklift with overhead cranes and he had started a WHS course but did not finish this. He agreed this involved a lot of reading. He stopped it because his reading was poor.[56]
[55]Transcript day 1 page 80.
[56]Transcript day 1 pages 81-83.
As regard to post injury, he did an investigation course. The majority of this was online. He paid $2,000 for the course. He thought he would be able to do work chasing cheating spouses, for example by taking photographic evidence and getting written statements. He accepted he could also search online, search for documents and search people’s social media accounts. He agreed that the completion time was a two-year window. All of the assignments were written. He had to, for example, do an essay on the computer.[57]
[57]Transcript day 1 pages 83-86.
He said he did not apply for any work after he did the course because he did not think he was qualified enough or could sit for long periods of time.[58] He also had poor concentration levels. He was shown Exhibit 6 which shows that he completed a number of modules for the course, and he admitted completing the course in four months. He said he was able to do it so quickly because he had plenty of time on his hands. He did the course because he didn’t think he could return to physical work.[59]
[58]Transcript day 1 page 87.5.
[59]Transcript day 1 pages 92-93.
He accepted he told Dr Todman in mid-2020 that he was considering working in surveillance, but he agreed he took no steps to find an employer, despite having completed the course.[60]
[60]Transcript day 1 pages 93-94.
He said that in March 2020 during COVID, his care for the children impacted his employment prospects. He was looking after the children regularly at their house and did not work.[61]
[61]Transcript day 1 page 95.
Mr Singleton agreed saw a number of doctors between 2023 and 2025. He told Dr Tuffley in 2023 he had done the PI course, but he told Dr Tuffley he couldn’t work as a PI because of the sitting aspect. He agreed he had been on the DSP since December 2021 and received a TPD payout.[62]
[62]Transcript day 1 page 96.
He also admitted doing further study and obtaining a further private investigation certificate in March 2023.[63] This was certificate four in government investigation. He claimed he did this to keep his mind active. Despite this, he claimed he could not pursue a career in private investigations. He said he kept it in mind but was sceptical that he could do the work because of a lack of concentration and ability to sit still.[64]
[63] Exhibit 8.
[64]Transcript day 1 page 97-98.
He said that he saw a chiropractor for his back pain, neck and knees.[65] He admitted going on a trip to Bali in 2023. He accepted that in 2023 he registered an ABN as a sole trader. This was to keep open possibilities for work as a subcontractor. He claimed he did not have any specific occupation in mind. Exhibit 9 are the ABN details.[66]
[65]Transcript day 1 page 100.25.
[66]Transcript day 1 pages 100-103.
He admitted applying to be registered as a private investigator with the Queensland Government. Exhibit 10 is the licencing register report. He said this had expired. He claimed he did not consider that his occupation was as a private investigator. He did not recall telling Dr Foxcroft that the PI course took him longer to complete than he expected.[67] He admitted that it only took him four months to do the course.[68]
[67]Transcript day 1 page 105.40.
[68]Transcript day 1 pages 104-106.
He said that he took Lyrica and Palexia. He told Dr Chalk in June 2025 that he was taking this medication. He also took Panadol as required. The doses varied.
He was shown a health history document (Exhibit 11) and accepted he stated in that document he was not taking any medication. He also agreed that he lied where he said he had no children. He also said in that document his occupation was private investigator. He said he put that down because he did not want to put down that he was a dole bludger.[69] He also admitted the address was wrong because that was the address on his licence, but it wasn’t his address at the time.[70] Despite what was in Exhibit 11, he claimed he was not intending to work as a private investigator.
[69]Transcript day 1 page 109.20.
[70]Transcript day 1 pages 107-111.
Mr Singleton agreed that he played a lot of chess and at one stage played eight games over a two-week period. He had plenty of time to do this.[71]
[71]Transcript day 1 pages 111-112.
He said he would like to be a sound technician. He told Dr Foxcroft he was interested in this in 2021 but has not looked into what course is needed to qualify in this area. Instead, he enrolled in a certificate four in private investigation.[72]
[72]Transcript day 1 pages 112-113.
He denied cancelling the ABN registration (Exhibit 12).
Cross-examination by the second defendant MT
It was put to him that he left Australia for Denpasar on 11 August 2022 and returned to Brisbane on 4 September 2022. He claimed he went to Bali (Kuta) by himself and stayed in a hotel. He went there to relax and sat around the pool getting sun. There was no particular reason he went there. He also saw a Balinese man called Ketut whom he knew from word of mouth. Ketut massaged him. He has seen Ketut multiple times. His friends, a security officer and a housekeeper told him about Ketut because they were aware of his spinal surgery. These friends would speak to Ketut for him because Ketut has very poor English. He paid Ketut in cash. Mr Singleton said it was not akin to a massage, but a type of rubbing with lotions. These rubbings took between 30 minutes and an hour. Ketut’s qualifications did not concern him. He felt what Ketut did was helpful because he had his own technique. You wouldn’t be able to find Ketut online because he’s about 100 years old and has no social media.[73]
[73]Transcript day 1 pages 117-123.
Mr Singleton accepted the flight to Denpasar was six hours and 20 minutes and he had to sit for take-off and landing. He said that he stretched, walked and slept during the flight. On the flight home it took five to six hours, and he took a train or was picked up from Brisbane to go home. He takes a backpack as carry on which is less than seven kilos on the flight.[74]
[74]Transcript day 1 pages 123-124.
He could not recall another trip he did to Bali for 10 days on 28 February 2023. If he did, he did not know why he went back. He claimed that he had a few friends in Bali whom he had made through his travels. He did not dispute that he took another trip to Bali on 2 May 2023, and returned to Brisbane on 19 May 2023 after being in Bali for 17 days. He claimed he was in Bali alone. He accepted he could negotiate airports and do air travel unassisted. He would get a driver there. He didn’t need a companion when he did these Bali trips. He could also carry his backpack. It was not more than seven kilos because Jetstar would not allow more than this.[75]
[75]Transcript day 1 pages 125-127.
Mr Singleton then accepted that eight days later, on 27 May 2023 he travelled to Vancouver on a 14-hour flight. He was overseas for 21 days on this occasion. He then flew to Portland, Oregon (a one to two hour flight). He claimed he stayed with friends Steve and Megan, although did not know their surnames. He said he met them through a friend. He spent a week in Portland. They went to bars and restaurants. He then went to New York with his friend Susan Sluiter who comes from Sydney. He claimed not to have her phone number. He claimed he deleted it. They had met at the Casino. She allegedly works for Bupa. They stayed in New York for a week in an Airbnb which was arranged by Susan, and he did a lot of sight-seeing there and he was on his feet a fair bit. He also went to a wedding of a friend of Susan’s. They then went to Hawaii for four to five days on the way home. He did go into the water but did not actually swim. He walked there but he couldn’t surf or ride horseback. They then returned to Sydney on 17 June 2023 after a ten-hour flight. He spent some time in the airport, then boarded a second flight to the Gold Coast. [76]
[76]Transcript day 1 pages 127-132.
He did not recall going back to Denpasar from the Gold Coast in August 2023 for 12 days, returning to Australia on 9 September 2023.[77]
[77]Transcript day 1 page 132.45-133.1.
He then went to New Zealand with Crystal. They flew from the Gold Coast to Christchurch and came home through Auckland. He went to Queenstown, and they went to the snow at Coronet peak. He claimed he didn’t snowboard. Crystal drove the car as he was not on the insurance.[78]
[78]Transcript day 1 pages 133-134.
Then again on 18 August 2024, Mr Singleton flew to Denpasar where he stayed through to 9 September 2024. He claimed he was relaxing. He denied taking drugs in Bali.[79]
[79]Transcript day 1 pages 134-135.
He then went to Manila on 3 October 2024 with a friend called Charlie, a crane driver. He spent his time there relaxing on beaches. He walked and went to restaurants. He would also go to the gym.[80]
[80]Transcript day 2 pages 5-7.
With respect to his gym training, he goes five to six days a week. He started in the gym in 2016. He does a push routine, a pull routine and a leg routine.[81]
[81]Transcript day 2 page 7.45.
He had about two years off from the gym after the incident and returned to it in late 2021.[82]
[82]Transcript day 2 page 8.45.
With respect to the push routine, he uses a cable machine, Smith machine for bench presses (three sets with three to eight reps at 30kgs), up to 30 push ups; a cable machine up to 40kgs and a tricep pulldown up to 40kgs.[83]
[83]Transcript day 2 pages 9-17.
With respect to his pulling day, he uses a lat pulldown at 30kgs (3 sets); dumbbell curls with 12.5kgweights; hammer curls with 12.5kg weights and a cross body curl. He also uses a cable machine (12-13kgs). There are also bicep curls on a cable machine which involve 18 kilograms.[84]
[84]Transcript day 2 pages 17-26.
He claimed he was at the gym for up to two hours a session but only actually exercising for 20 to 25 minutes.[85]
[85]Transcript day 2 page 26.
With respect to his legs, he does 20kg calf raises, squats, lunges and leg extensions.. He usually has one day’s rest per week.[86]
[86]Transcript day 2 pages 26-30.
With respect to Manila, Mr Singleton said that he did find a gym there. He described what he did in Manila. He then went to Cebu City on his own and stayed in a hotel. He then went to Moalboal and stayed in a beach resort where he swam. He met Charlie there. They also went to bars. He did sight-seeing at Waterfalls (getting there on the back of a scooter); swimming; going to drinks and dinner; swimming with whale sharks (taking one hour on a bus to get there) and swimming with sardines.[87]
[87]Transcript day 2 pages 30-38.
He then went to El Nino where he did sight-seeing, for example taking a boat to the islands for several hours. He also did a Zipline in a forest. He then went to Coron for two days, then back to Manila and returned to Australia on 15 November 2024.[88]
[88]Transcript day 2 pages 38-41.
On 5 December 2024, he flew to Japan from Sydney and stayed in Japan for 13 days. He did sight-seeing at temples in Osaka. He climbed up and down stairs and caught busy trains. He also went to bars. He did sight-seeing in Kyoto and went to temples. He then went to Tokyo for the rest of the trip where he also did sight-seeing and used public transport. He then returned to Osaka, flew to Cairns and then flew home. [89]
[89]Transcript day 2 pages 42-45.
In March 2025, he spent 21 days in Bali with a friend called Hayley. They had met at the Casino. He relaxed, went to the beach and did some walking.[90]
[90]Transcript day 2 pages 45-47.

Mr Singleton accepted that his first trip was on 11 April 2022[91] and in the 958 days since, he had spent 20 per cent of it overseas travelling. He accepted he was travelling more than he did before the injury.[92]
[91]It seems to be common ground that in fact this is August 2022.
[92]Transcript day 2 page 47.
He admitted that he did not tell Dr Chalk about his overseas travels as he did not think it was relevant. He admitted that he had not told the expert witnesses about them.[93]
[93]Transcript day 2 page 47.15.
He was shown a statement dated 4 October 2023 in which he said he could not work since the accident but did not disclose the travel history. He said he did not think it was relevant.[94] He said he did not know where Carley or Petra were. He lived with Joe and Joe did most of the duties at home.[95]
[94]Transcript day 2 page 49.
[95]Transcript day 2 pages 50-52.
He saw Dr Foxcroft in May 2025 who took his history. He did not tell him about the travel and admitted telling him that his lifestyle was extremely limited.[96] He didn’t tell Dr Foxcroft about the travel because he did not think it was relevant.
[96]Exhibit 38B report of Dr Foxcroft dated 14 May 2025 page 3.9. Transcript day 2 page 56.
He did not dispute he told Dr Foxcroft he had a lifestyle around which he managed the pain.[97]
[97]Exhibit 38B report of Dr Foxcroft dated 14 May 2025 page 4.3. Transcript day 2 page 57.
He agreed he attended Mrs Coles in February 2025 and told her about his limited physical capability. He didn’t tell her about the travel. He told her that he went to the gym three times a week for 45 minutes each session.[98] He accepted this was not true. He accepted that his telling Mrs Coles that he had a 10kg weight limit was a lie.[99]
[98]Exhibit 21B report of Mrs Coles dated 21 April 2025 page 5.6. Transcript day 2 page 58.
[99]Exhibit 21B report of Mrs Coles dated 21 April 2025 page 5.6. Transcript day 2 page 59.1.
He was shown records from the Tweed Valley Hospital[100] and agreed that he was admitted on 10 February 2022 and discharged on 22 February 2022. He said that he was admitted for alcohol intoxication. He admitted he was found on a beach and brought to the emergency department. He claimed his drink was spiked. He denied using cocaine and claimed that Joe had mistakenly told the doctors this is what happened.[101] I have my doubts about this evidence because he later claimed he stopped cocaine use that night.
[100]Exhibit 55.
[101]Transcript day 2 pages 59-64.
He admitted telling the nurses he had walked to Minyon falls the weekend prior. He had driven a car there with Crystal and had walked one kilometre each way.[102]
[102]Transcript day 2 page 62.15.
He said that he started taking cocaine on New Year’s eve in 2021 but stopped on 22 February 2022. He claimed that he did not know the cost of it and claimed he got it from a friend.[103] I have my doubts about his claim to not know the cost of it.
[103]Transcript day 2 page 64.
With respect to the notice of claim dated 19 June 2020, he agreed that he gave instructions to his lawyers to bring a claim on 11 September 2019, which is before the surgery.[104] I did not think there was much a point in that as he did have an MRI at that stage which showed the L4/5 protrusion. With respect to part two of the notice of claim, he agreed he did not include his private investigator qualifications as it slipped his mind.
[104]Transcript day 2 page 65.
Mr Singleton was then questioned about his induction training with MT and admitted watching a video and slideshow. He was shown a number of documents regarding this training. He admitted signing the SWP (Exhibit 5). He did not recall seeing the standard work practice sheet and had not seen the trolley depicted previously. He had never used that trolley previously.[105]
[105]Transcript day 2 pages 66-69.
He agreed the SWP included a component of general manual handling and lifting. He agreed that his task at the time of the injury included manual handling. He was able to assess such task and knew of the risks. He was not aware of how heavy the spiral and trough were at the time and had been told by co-workers it weighs about 100 kilograms.[106] He disagreed that the trough weighed 30kgs.[107] He did not dispute that lifting one end of the trough still attached to the spiral was 52 kilograms.[108]
[106]Transcript day 2 page 77.25.
[107]Transcript day 2 page 77.45.
[108]Transcript day 2 page 78.10.
He accepted he knew that he had to be careful about lifting things. He said that if the spiral was damaged it would be his responsibility. He admitted knowing about safe lifting practices. He said that the pain he suffered occurred when the spiral fell. He would have considered safe lifting techniques when he lifted the spiral. He never considered the spiral trolley because he didn’t know about it and he had a co-worker to assist.[109]
[109]Transcript day 2 pages 78-79.
There was a pause between when the spiral fell to the ground and picking it up as he was in pain.[110] He said that he followed safe lifting principles when he lifted it.[111]
[110]Transcript day 2 page 81.45.
[111]Transcript day 2 page 82.
He did not accept that the injury happened when he lifted it.[112]
[112]Transcript day 2 page 83.10.
The plaintiff admitted that before the injury he had attended a psychologist and indeed nine days before the injury on 2 July 2019 he had a depressed mood and was sad.[113] He denied injuring his back surfing whilst in Bali.[114]
[113]Transcript day 2 pages 84-85.
[114]Transcript day 2 page 85.45. Exhibit 53 pages 3-6.
He admitted telling the psychologist he struggled to get back into work and all he was getting was “shit kicker” jobs. He said that he did well at school and was bright.[115]
[115]Transcript day 2 page 86.
He admitted seeing Dr Andrew Sax on 4 April 2024 who noted that the plaintiff was occasionally taking cocaine. The plaintiff denied taking the drug then.[116]
[116]Transcript day 2 page 87.
With respect to the injury on 11 July 2019, he said it was Paul who rubbed the deep heat in, and Paul was the leading hand.[117]
[117]Transcript day 2 page 88.
Mr Singleton saw Dr Foxcroft in July 2020. He admitted telling Dr Foxcroft that in 2011 he was charged with giving a false statement to the police. He didn’t tell Dr Foxcroft that he was taking illegal drugs.[118]
[118]Transcript day 2 page 90.
He was shown a photograph of the rails with the spiral and admitted the rail might be less than a metre high.[119]
[119]Transcript day 2 pages 91-92.
With respect to Dr Chalk, he didn’t tell him about his travels and didn’t tell him about his use of illicit drugs.[120]
[120]Transcript day 2 page 93.
He did not dispute he was assessed by Dr Cochrane in early 2020 for WorkCover and agreed that there was an attempt to get him back to work. He could not work at St Vincent de Paul as he had a criminal history and did not recall being offered work with Bunnings.[121]
[121]Transcript day 2 pages 94-95.
He was shown his LinkedIn page which stated he was a private investigator, and which noted that between July 2019 and December 2021 he was recovering with his health.[122] From January 2022 until December 2023, he was noted as transitioning in his career.
[122]Transcript day 2 pages 95-99. Exhibit 13.
He admitted he lied about having a bachelor’s degree in engineering from Bond University.[123]
[123]Transcript day 2 page 99.10.
In early 2020, he attended a physiotherapist who assisted him with rehabilitation. He had an adductor tear in February 2020.[124]
[124]Transcript day 2 pages 99.
He saw an occupational therapist (OT) for WorkCover and did not dispute that he told the OT he had to care for the children which interfered with his returning to work. He said that he was caring for the children from time to time.[125] He admitted he attended the Tweed Hospital in 2011 complaining of low back pain due to a fall.[126]
[125]Transcript day 2 page 100.
[126]Transcript day 2 page 109. Exhibit 53 page 29.
He saw Dr Patton in September 2022 and told the doctor that a month before he had an accident on a scooter and had an injury to his left side. He admitted riding a e-scooter.[127] In my view, this supports the contention the back pain was not so much of a problem in 2022 such as to prevent him some employment at this time, otherwise he would not have been riding an e-scooter.
[127]Transcript day 2 pages 109-110. Exhibit 53 page 9.
He did not recall asking for Viagra in May 2018 from the Kennedy Drive Medical Centre.[128]
[128]Transcript day 2 page 110. Exhibit 53 page 49.
He admitted telling a nurse at the Gold Coast hospital on 23 July 2025 that he worked as a private investigator. He did not recall saying he took no regular medication.[129]
[129]Transcript day 2 page 111. Exhibit 55.
Cross-examination by the third party
Mr Campbell KC in cross-examination established that the plaintiff gave DPS his resumé which was tendered as Exhibit 14. This showed that he had experience as a fabricator/moulder. He said he was not familiar with the task he was given at MT.[130] He admitted having an interview at DPS and then he was sent to MT for a second interview. MT arranged the medical and offered him the job. He was paid by DPS. It was MT staff who directed him in his tasks and not DPS. The training was done by MT. There was a concern at MT that the manufacturing process could be copied.[131] All visitors had to report to the front office and could not pass a yellow line and boom gate.
[130]Transcript day 2 pages 112.10.
[131]Transcript day 2 page 113.30.
Re-examination
In re-examination the plaintiff said that he had the MRI scan which showed the injury on 2 August 2019, the month before he engaged lawyers. He was told of the results.[132]
[132]Transcript day 2 pages 116-118.
With respect to the SWP document (Exhibit 5), he probably did not read each of the documents provided.[133] Regarding the certificate three in private investigations, this was all done online. With regard to the chiropractor’s notes[134] he said he did not admit being on the DSP because he was embarrassed. He also had little to do with his children and he did not put down the medication because he could not spell it. [135]
[133]Transcript day 2 page 118.
[134]Exhibit 11.
[135]Transcript day 2 pages 118-119.
As regards to the LinkedIn page, he never worked it as a private investigator, and he did this to impress a woman.[136]
[136]Transcript day 2 page 119.25.
With respect to his travel, he was able to fund this because he inherited a substantial sum of money from his father. The travel was good for his mental health. He described how he would stand up, medicate himself and stretch on flights. He was knocked around after the flights.[137]
[137]Transcript day 2 pages 119-121.
After the back injury in 2011 he had no time off work. He had produced the email concerning his ABN.[138]
[138]Transcript day 2 page 121.

FIRST DEFENDANT
Mr Mark Ferguson

Mark Ferguson gave evidence that he bought the company (DPS) from his mother, and he became the director.[139] He said that MT was owned by Downer. MT produced mineral separation equipment for mines. DPS provided the staff. DPS is a labour hire company. He used to visit MT’s premises at Carrara.[140] He knew that there was a moulding section, a fibreglass section etc.[141] They had supplied staff to MT for some 25 years. The process would be that he would receive an order for staff, and he would advertise, receive resumés, and identify that best of the resumés. He then would interview the applicant and then refer the applicant to the client. He said the DPS entered into the contract with Downer (Exhibit 34). He supplied employees to MT. He said that he had gone to Sydney and met the contracts department at Downer concerning a proposal for labour hire services (Exhibit 39). His mother Jennifer Kennedy dealt with this. He also used Neil Fanning to do a workplace health and safety report with respect to this proposal. Mr Fanning visited MT’s site. He couldn’t really recall why he did this.[142]
[139]Transcript day 4 page 62.22.
[140]Transcript day 4 page 63.15.
[141]Transcript day 4 page 63.20.
[142]Transcript day 4 pages 65-66.
He was shown the schedule to Exhibit 34 which showed that the initial contract was from 1 March 2015 until 28 February 2017. Exhibit 35 was an extension until 30 September 2018. He agreed that Mr Singleton’s services were supplied to MT in 2019. He recalled receiving the plaintiff’s resumé and employed him (Exhibit 14).[143] He said that he did a referee check. He interviewed Mr Singleton and then contacted Shane Hays or Butch at MT and referred him there.[144] He sent over the resumé. They wanted to interview him at Carrara and Mr Singleton was to be shown the job. He had a medical done through Downer. His job description was as a factory hand.[145] Mr Ferguson said he would receive a purchase order (Exhibit 25). The terms and conditions were later tendered.[146] He would then send an invoice[147] for the supply of services which was paid.
[143]Transcript day 4 page 68.20.
[144]Transcript day 4 page 69.5.
[145]Transcript day 4 page 69.30.
[146]Exhibit 45.
[147]Exhibit 40.
He visited the MT factory often. The purpose of this was to catch up generally with the managers and he also saw his staff members there. He would organise a meeting with a manager.[148]
[148]Transcript day 4 page 71.25.
The procedure would be that he would go to reception, sign in, put on a high vis shirt and the manager would come and get him. He would walk across the yard of the factory, but he could not go into the working area. If he spoke to a worker they would bring the worker to the barrier.[149] He always stayed in the safety area for safety reasons. He also was told that the barriers were to protect the design of the moulds.[150] He cannot recall the date when this occurred.[151]
[149]Transcript day 4 page 71.35-72.5.
[150]Transcript day 4 page 72.40.
[151]Transcript day 4 page 73.10.
Mr Ferguson’s job was to supply the workers. On the other hand, the manager of MT would show the workers the role, tell them of the tasks and any training was done at MT. He was not aware of the type of training.[152] He agreed that DPS took out liability insurance.[153]
[152]Transcript day 4 page 73.15-30.
[153]Exhibit 41.
In cross-examination he agreed that DPS had provided the staff to MT for some 20 years. He started at DPS in 2002 and they were providing staff before this. He agreed that he dealt with Mr de Andrade. He did not deal with Mr de Andrade concerning the contracts. He dealt with Downer Mining. He agreed there was a gap between one contract and the other. He denied the proposition that they operated on a month-to-month basis during this gap period, and he said there was no contract between them at the time of the injury. He said the situation had changed, they were simply being paid and there was no agreement. He never discussed the contractual terms with Mr de Andrade, and he said that the old terms did not apply. All he knew was that he was paying the workers. He also said that when the contract ended, he started charging higher rates because he thought that he was out of contract. It took a long time for the second contract to be signed. During that prolonged period, he was dealing with Butch, Shane Hayes and Alex (de Andrade) who were ordering staff. He never saw them concerning any contract; that was dealt with by head office. At one stage they were not paying the bills and he was “freaking out.” At no stage did Mr de Andrade and he discuss the existing agreement.
With respect to Exhibit 39 (the proposal) he does not know whether that was before the 2015 contact or the 2019 contract. Mr Ferguson agreed he attended the factory regularly.[154] This was always by appointment. He was not turned away. He would report to reception and sign in. He agreed that he had a good relationship with Butch, Alex and Mr Hayes.[155] He dealt with these men concerning the provision of workers. He had a good understanding of the work that was done at the factory and of the skills and qualifications needed.[156] If he had concerns about safety he would have called them immediately. He accepted that MT treated safety issues seriously.[157] He did not dispute that when Downer took over, there was stricter adherence to workplace health and safety.[158] He observed the safety requirements of the factory when he went there for example by wearing a high vis shirt.[159]
[154]Transcript day 4 page 115.45.
[155]Transcript day 4 page 116-117.
[156]Transcript day 4 page 117.45.
[157]Transcript day 4 page 118.25-35.
[158]Transcript day 4 page 118.40.
[159]Transcript day 4 page 119.42.
He was not prevented from talking to DPS staff. No one prevented him from looking at the premises when he conducted his visits.[160] He knew the premises extremely well. Once the barriers were put up though he could not go into the working area. Butch told him that he had to stay behind the barriers because they were now the rules of the site. At no stage did he ask to go beyond the yellow line.[161]
[160]Transcript day 4 page 120.
[161]Transcript day 4 page 121-122.
Mr Ferguson said that MT never showed him the training material.[162] He did not think they would give it to him.[163] He never asked to look at the SWPs.[164] He said that at one point he had the site inspected by a workplace health and safety officer and was comfortable with it.[165] He agreed that once the contract finished he changed the rates. There were problems with getting purchase orders at one point.
[162]Transcript day 4 page 122.5.
[163]Transcript day 4 page 122.11.
[164]Transcript day 4 page 122.32.
[165]Transcript day 4 page 122.35.
In cross-examination by Mr Charrington, he agreed that Neil Fanning (the workplace health and safety officer) was a contractor. He was employed to do site visits at various locations, and he attended the Carrara site in 2014. Mr Ferguson thought he might have gone there a few times.[166] He was quite vague about whether he reviewed that document.[167] He said that himself or Lisa were responsible for reviewing it.[168]
[166]Transcript day 4 page 125.40.
[167]Transcript day 4 page 126.10-20.
[168]Transcript day 4 page 126.15.
His job was to provide MT with labourers, but it was MT’s job to employ the labourers and give training and warnings regarding risks.[169]
[169]Transcript day 4 page 126.30.
As to Mr Singleton, he could not say what training was given to him regarding his tasks or any warnings given to him.[170] This was a matter for MT.[171] All employees were told to call Mr Ferguson if they had a concern.[172] He was not aware of the training or instructions given to the plaintiff regarding his tasks in the six week period.[173]
[170]Transcript day 4 page 126.31.
[171]Transcript day 4 page 126.35.
[172]Transcript day 4 page 126.32.
[173]Transcript day 4 page 126.40.
There was no regular audit by DPS of the workers regarding any safety concerns.[174] He then said that he thought Mr Fanning went there more than once and in quite a hesitant answer, he said that Lisa went there a lot.[175] I might say, I have difficulties accepting this evidence and I consider there was no regular system of safety checks by DPS. He really could not recall the things that happened.[176] He could not say 100 per cent that there was a regular safety audit process.[177]
[174]Transcript day 4 page 127.20.
[175]Transcript day 4 page 127.25-128.
[176]Transcript day 4 page 128.25.
[177]Transcript day 4 page 129.20.

In re-examination, he said that after the Fanning report there was no change in the manufacturing process.
SECOND DEFENDANT
Mr Paul Keough
Mr Keough is the factory manager at MT.[178] In July 2019 he was a production technician and a health and safety representative. He worked in the assembly area. He said that he knew the plaintiff’s name, but I thought he was not confident with his answer and seemed hesitant.[179]
[178]Transcript day 4 page 25.10.
[179]Transcript day 4 page 25.25.
He said the plaintiff was injured on 11 July 2019. Mr Keough’s role was to assemble the spirals. He was also there for health and safety.[180] The spirals were built from troughs. He was not in the assembly area where the plaintiff was working at the time of the accident but was close by.[181]
[180]Transcript day 4 page 26.
[181]Transcript day 4 page 26.5.
Mr Keough claimed that as the Health and Safety representative, if there was a safety concern “it was my job to look out for everyone” but then he denied being their supervisor.[182] He then said that he was a conduit with management “to make sure that the workplace was safe.”[183] I might say, I found these answers inconsistent and I did not accept he was not the supervisor.
[182]Transcript day 4 page 26.20. I note that both the plaintiff and Mr de Andrade said that Mr Keough was
the supervisor.
[183]Transcript day 4 page 26.25.
He then said that Shane Hayes was the supervisor on the floor at the time.[184] Yet in the space of 3 transcript pages, said that he did not know if Shane Hayes was there that morning.[185] I find his memory of this day was somewhat limited.
[184]Transcript day 4 page 26.35.
[185]Transcript day 4 page 29.11.
He said that Mr Singleton was there “maybe days”[186] which to my mind highlights the importance of supervision of the plaintiff.
[186]Transcript day 4 page 26.45.
With respect to the plaintiff, he did not recall if he had been the plaintiff’s buddy.[187] He said he had done the plaintiff’s job before.[188] He said that in respect of new staff, there was an induction, and they then buddy up with someone on the floor to show them the manual techniques of the job.[189]
[187]Transcript day 4 page 27.1.
[188]Transcript day 4 page 27.5.
[189]Transcript day 4 pages 26-27.
Mr Keough said that another staff member told him that the plaintiff had been injured.[190] He didn’t recall who told him about the accident.[191] After he was told about the accident he had a “chat” with the plaintiff in the assembly area.[192] He guessed that in the whole area there were about half a dozen people.[193]
[190]Transcript day 4 page 27.20.
[191]Transcript day 4 page 27.20.
[192]Transcript day 4 page 27.25.
[193]Transcript day 4 page 28.1.
He claimed “to the best of his memory” the plaintiff told him that he had a pinched nerve in his neck.[194] Mr Keough said that the plaintiff wanted to report it but said he was ok to continue.[195] I indicate I find that to be quite unlikely bearing in mind the plaintiff had a disc prolapse and had pain radiating down his leg at the time.
[194]Transcript day 4 page 28.10. This is not consistent with any other record.
[195]Transcript day 4 page 28.11.
Mr Keough claimed he asked the plaintiff what he wanted him to do as “that’s my responsibility.”[196] Then he said he had no responsibility to ensure productivity.[197]
[196]Transcript day 4 page 28.16.
[197]Transcript day 4 page 28.22.
Mr Keough was hesitant when asked whether he told the plaintiff to return to work, eventually denying it.[198] He claimed that the plaintiff chose to return to work.[199] I highly doubt this. By this stage, the plaintiff had suffered a disc protrusion and would have been in pain. I consider it unlikely that he volunteered to continue.
[198]Transcript day 4 page 28.25.
[199]Transcript day 4 page 28.30.
Mr Keough could not recall if anyone else participated in this conversation.[200] He had no recollection of the person working with the plaintiff claiming, “I think it was Dylan or someone.”[201] I find again, this is the example of his lack of memory.
[200]Transcript day 4 page 29.1.
[201]Transcript day 4 page 29.5.
He couldn’t recall if Shayne Hayes was there that morning.[202] Mr Keough claimed he told the plaintiff he would check on him in ten minutes to make sure he was okay. He returned within that time, and it was clear to him that the plaintiff was not doing well.[203] He claimed the plaintiff said that he had a pain in his shoulder but said “I am not sure of the exact wording.”[204]
[202]Transcript day 4 page 29.11.
[203]Transcript day 4 page 29.32.
[204]Transcript day 4 page 29.40- 30.5.
Mr Keough said that he introduced the plaintiff to a first aid officer Daniel, and he left the plaintiff and Daniel in the staff room about 25 meters away for first aid.[205] After this, Mr Keough spoke to four to five people in the rest area. He was told that a spiral had left the railing.[206]
[205]Transcript day 4 page 30.
[206]Transcript day 4 page 31.11.
He then went back to the plaintiff and said that they needed to make a doctor’s appointment but the doctor’s surgery did not open until 8:30am. When he went back there, Mr Singleton was not in the staffroom and was outside. Mr Singleton said he was cold and was standing in the sun.[207] This was around 6am.[208] Mr Keough claimed that he advised the plaintiff to go to the doctor (Sonic Health). The plaintiff did not want to wait and wanted to go home and then Daniel drove the plaintiff in his car home and Mr Keough followed them in his car and drove Daniel back to the factory.[209]
[207]Transcript day 4 page 31.
[208]Transcript day 4 page 32.1.
[209]Transcript day 4 page 32.
Mr Keough denied driving the plaintiff to the doctors.[210]
[210]Transcript day 4 page 32.35.
He claimed that someone would have given him the authority to do take the plaintiff home to his house at Kirra.[211] The plaintiff got out and went into the house and Mr Keough and Daniel went back to MT. He said a report would have been done. He referred to Exhibit 27, the SWP regarding the spider trolley, and said this would not lift up the spiral.[212]
[211]Transcript day 4 page 32.40-33.15.
[212]Transcript day 4 page 36.40.
In cross-examination by Mr Campbell, Mr Keough said that he worked for MT which dealt with mining equipment. He agreed that MT uses contract workers. DPS is one source. He said that when an employee starts at MT they do compulsory training. This is online training with five modules. He couldn’t say what the training was in 2019. He said he was the workplace health and safety rep in 2019 and he couldn’t say if MT had any concerns with people copying its manufacturing process.[213] He had not been given any security training. He said that mobile devices could not be used in the assembly area because of safety. He said he was not a manager; he was simply part of the production team. He said that from the yellow line you could see the whole manufacturing process.[214]
[213]Transcript day 4 page 39.
[214]Transcript day 4 page 40.
In cross-examination by Mr Charrington, he denied being a supervisor.[215] He also denied being a leading hand. He did agree though that he would talk at the toolbox meetings. He said his main role was as a production technician. He agreed that the spider trolley could not be used between rails because it would not fit into that area.[216]
[215]Transcript day 4 page 41.5.
[216]Transcript day 4 page 41.30.
He was shown the SWP regarding demoulding (Exhibit 28) and agreed that items 15 and 16 were the only ones related to the demoulding task that the plaintiff was doing.[217] There is no other document which gave instructions as regard to separating the spirals from the moulds.[218] The only direct instruction on this point is given by the buddy system.[219] He did say there was an SWP regarding manual handling. He agreed there was no document regarding the risks of the spiral falling off the rail. [220] He was asked whether a buddy would impart this knowledge and he said, “I guess. I don’t know.”[221]
[217]Transcript day 4 page 42.10.
[218]Transcript day 4 page 42.15.
[219]Transcript day 4 page 42.20.
[220]Transcript day 4 page 42.40.
[221]Transcript day 4 page 43.5.
With respect to item 15 on Exhibit 28, Mr Keough agreed that the PVC overhang varied. Some are shorter, some are longer.[222] He did not ultimately dispute that some have an overhang of about 100mm.[223] He said there was a collar on all of the PVC overhangs but admitted that it was possible for the column to fall off the rails.[224]
[222]Transcript day 4 page 43.
[223]Transcript day 4 page 45.25.
[224]Transcript day 4 page 45.40.
He admitted that the columns did fall off the rails sometimes and this was possible if the angle became less than perpendicular.[225]
[225]Transcript day 4 page 45.45.
It was put to him that the plaintiff came to him and said he had injured himself when the spiral fell off the rails and he said, “I don’t remember.”[226] Again, I think this shows a lack of memory on his part.
[226]Transcript day 4 page 46.5.
He denied telling the plaintiff to go back to work. He did not believe the plaintiff came back and said a similar thing had happened again. He agreed that it was a year later that he first provided a written statement concerning the incident.[227]
[227]Transcript day 4 page 46.45.
He did not recall putting the plaintiff on a lighter task of bolts and washers.[228] He denied advising the plaintiff to stand in the sun and denied putting deep heat on him.[229]
[228]Transcript day 4 page 47.5.
[229]Transcript day 4 page 47.11.
He denied the plaintiff said he had back pain after the first fall of the spiral, but the plaintiff eventually said he was experiencing back pain.[230] He said he advised the plaintiff to see a doctor at Sonic Health as this was company procedure.[231]
[230]Transcript day 4 page 47.20.
[231]Transcript day 4 page 47.25.
Mr Keough did not remember that he drove the plaintiff first to Sonic Health and then home.[232] He was not sure if he drove the plaintiff to the doctor.[233] I find this further shows that his memory is not reliable.
[232]Transcript day 4 page 47.35.
[233]Transcript day 4 page 48.10.
He accepted that the plaintiff made a complaint of back pain when he was in the sun.[234] He said there was a complaint of a neck condition.[235]
[234]Transcript day 4 page 51.1.
[235]Transcript day 4 page 51.10. I consider this evidence contrary to the evidence of the plaintiff, the
incident report (Exhibit 29) and Dr Simonds’ notes (Exhibit 55).
In re-examination he was referred to Exhibit 33, the SWP concerning general handling. He said this was relevant to the task that the plaintiff was doing.[236]
[236]Transcript day 4 page 51.45.
He admitted that the end of the spiral had fallen off a rail previously, but he could only count on one hand when this had happened.[237] He said if it falls off the rail it doesn’t fall far.[238] He agreed that the spirals are very awkward to lift and there needs to be a team lift to put it back on the rails. They are four metres long and oddly shaped.[239]
[237]Transcript day 4 page 52.20.
[238]Transcript day 4 page 52.25.
[239]Transcript day 4 page 52.
Jessica Spaic
Jessica Spaic gave evidence that she is a senior administrator at MT and has been for 25 years. She looks after the reception area in the main building in the factory at Carrara. She said that when one visits the factory, you go to the main building and sign in which is part of the site rules. A person will then come and get them. There has been an electronic system since COVID and a carbon paper book before this.[240] She knows Mark Ferguson. He visited the site regularly a couple of times a year. He would see people such as Shane Hayes and Butch Watt at the factory. Mr Ferguson was never excluded from the site.
[240]This has since been disposed of.
In cross-examination, she conceded that the policy was that a person could only enter the factory with another member of staff. This was for safety reasons. She was not aware that there was an issue regarding secrecy as to manufacturing techniques. The site rules meant that no photos could be taken on the factory floor. She said that Mr Ferguson used to see her personally.
Alex de Andrade
Mr de Andrade worked for MT as a technical manager, operations manager and then general manager. He was general manager at MT between 2020 and 2023 and before this from August 2013 he was the operations manager.[241]
[241]Transcript day 3 page 135.
He knows Mark Ferguson from DPS. Exhibit 25 is a purchase order from MT to DPS with regard to direct labour hire between March 2019 and December 2019. The total order was $200,020.[242]
[242]Transcript day 3 page 136.
He was also shown Exhibit 26 which he said was an induction document concerning the plaintiff. This was proof of training.[243] Exhibit 5 was the register signed by the production manager to show that the plaintiff had read and understood safe working procedures. Exhibit 27 is a standard work practice concerning the spiral trolley. Exhibit 28 is the safe work procedure concerning demoulding troughs.
[243]Transcript day 3 page 137.
Exhibit 29 is the incident report. This shows that the plaintiff did sustain an injury whilst attempting to prevent the spiral falling from the rack. It was said to be a shoulder strain, but I think this is just simply an error in translation bearing in mind we know that the plaintiff sustained a definite disc protrusion and complained to Mr Keough about back pain.[244]
[244]Transcript day 3 page 140.
Exhibit 30 is a standard work practice of preparing a mould for production. Exhibit 31 is the standard work practice regarding the jib crane. Exhibit 32 is the standard work practice regarding spiral preassembly. Exhibit 33 is the general manual handling SWP. Exhibit 34 is the labour hire agreement between Downer and DPS.
Mr de Andrade said that he met Mr Ferguson in March 2015, and a contract was agreed upon between the parties.
Exhibit 35 is a letter of variation which extended the contract from 1 March 2018 until 30 September 2018. Exhibit 36 is an email from Mr Ferguson to Mr de Andrade. Mr Ferguson on 10 February 2017 said “I just wanted to say thank you for extending our contract at Downers for another year. We look forward to doing more business together in 2017.”
Mr de Andrade understood that Mr Ferguson was the owner of DPS. He used to meet Mr Ferguson twice a month and once a month he would see the production manager. On those occasions, Mr Ferguson would go to reception and he would be collected because he couldn’t go into the factory unaccompanied. He would pass through the factory to get to the office. He would pass the area where the incident took place and got within one to two meters of it. He could ask for access to the work area but never asked for this. Mr de Andrade would not have refused permission.[245]
[245]Transcript day 3 pages 144-145.
He said that MT needed casual workers and 90 per cent were provided by DPS. With respect to the LHA, in February 2019 there needed to be a renewal of the agreement and a re-signature of the contract. Mr de Andrade liaised with Mr Ferguson about it because Downer wanted to change some of the terms and conditions and this took time. He said they were all of the impression that before the re-signature it was a month-to-month contract. Mr Ferguson continued doing monthly visits. There were also discussions of insurance.[246]
[246]Transcript day 3 page 146.
Mr de Andrade said that every year Mr Ferguson would set up a meeting and a PowerPoint with respect to the contract. Mr Ferguson confirmed he would deal with Workcover and insurance. Every year he would do this to keep his contract alive with MT including substantiating his salaries. Mr de Andrade said that he asked Mark whether they were going to continue on until the signature on the contract. Mark said they were treating it as a month-to-month contract. He confirmed he was not stopping work. Mr de Andrade understood that the same terms and conditions applied. Around this time, Mark offered his services with respect to South Africa and again he confirmed it was month to month contract with no change in terms.[247]
[247]Transcript day 5 page 3.
In cross examination by Ms McNeil, Mr de Andrade was shown Exhibit 26. This was the record of completion. He said the workers did not have to complete the modules by day one.[248] He agreed that they could start work without the modules being done.[249]
[248]Transcript day 5 page 4.
[249]Transcript day 5 page 4.1.
With respect to the SWP log[250] he said that someone from MT would provide the new worker with the SWPs. A hard copy of the document would have been given out. MT also requires returning workers to refresh themselves every 12 months or so according to their tasks. Each new worker should go through the document physically. The safety manager would organise this.[251]
[250]Exhibit 5.
[251]Transcript day 5 page 6-7.
With respect to the buddy system, he couldn’t confirm if Mr Singleton did this.[252] He said that Mr Keough was a supervisor for the spirals. The new workers would be guided by someone like Paul Keough.[253]
[252]Transcript day 5 page 8.15.
[253]Transcript day 5 page 8.40.
With respect to the demoulding, he said there would have been a supervisor on the floor. The entire factory is about 40 metres long and there would have been three to four supervisors in the area.[254] He was then shown Exhibit 28 and accepted that Exhibit 28B would have been the demoulding SWP as at the date of the accident. He said that if injuries occurred lessons were learnt, and the SWP documents were revised.[255]
[254]Transcript day 5 page 9.15.
[255]Transcript day 5 page 10.
He was taken to page 4, items 14 to 16 of Exhibit 28B and agreed that Exhibit 5 showed that Mr Singleton was not trained in SWP9, which is the use of the jib crane. He did say that it may be that the sublevel SWP is not on the sheet. The workers should be trained on the sub levels.[256]
[256]Transcript day 5 page 11-13.
In cross-examination by Mr Campbell, he agreed that MT used DPS to get casual workers. This catered for the highs and lows necessary for the workforce. They would keep the workers on for two years at most and if they stayed on they would become employees. He agreed that Mr Ferguson would visit the factory and the production managers Mr Hayes, Butch and himself.[257]
[257]Transcript day 5 page 14.
He was the engineering and technical manager between 2013 and 2016 and for the last seven years has been the general manager. He agreed that during the relevant period he held a general manager level and was involved with the workers. He agreed that MT would ask DPS for a worker with a particular skill set and DPS would do the screening. Mr Ferguson would then send over the resumés having already checked the references.[258]
[258]Transcript day 5 page 14-16.
With Mr Singleton, it is possible he had a second interview at MT.[259] MT arranged the medical. DPS was not involved with the electronic training modules but DPS had an obligation under the contract to ensure any training was completed.[260]
[259]Transcript day 5 page 16.15.
[260]Transcript day 5 page 16.41.
Mr de Andrade said that he had read the contract[261]which was signed by Downer. Centralised Business Services (CBS) handled the legalities. He agreed that MT did not sign the letter of variation. He said that DPS was a preferred supplier and to be a preferred supplier DPS had to satisfy Downer’s requirements. DPS was already in the system in 2013 and he agreed that DPS had to be approved by CBS.[262]
[261]Exhibit 34.
[262]Transcript day 5 page 17-19

The plaintiff refers to a number of cases at page 15 of his submissions. Of course, each case depends on its own facts.
In this case, I do not find the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as:
(a)He was relatively new to the position and was not overly experienced with stripping the moulds.
(b)He was allocated an inexperienced co-worker to work with.
(c)There was inadequate supervision of the plaintiff in carrying out the task and the training to my mind was inadequate.
(d)There was no insistence on the use of the pivot lock or the collar. The system was deficient.
(e)The written SWPs did not deal with the risks associated with the spiral falling off the rails.
(f)There was no verbal instruction given as to the risks or use of protective measures.
Insofar as the lifting is concerned, it is perfectly understandable that once the spiral had fallen to the ground, the plaintiff and a co-worker would lift it up to put it back on the rail. The second defendant should have factored this into the system employed at its premises and in the written material concerning the demoulding process. There should have been warnings of the risk of the spiral falling and of the need to get assistance or to take care when lifting it back on the rail.
I do not find any contributory negligence as against the plaintiff.
Contribution and indemnity
Sections 6(c) and 7 of the Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld) provide:
“6 Proceedings against, and contribution between, joint and several tortfeasors
Where damage is suffered by any person as a result of a tort (whether a crime or not) the following apply—
…
(c) any tortfeasor liable in respect of that damage may recover contribution from any other tortfeasor who is, or would if sued have been, liable in respect of the same damage, whether as a joint tortfeasor or otherwise, so, however, that no person shall be entitled to recover contribution under this section from any person entitled to be indemnified by the person in respect of the liability in respect of which the contribution is sought.
7 Amount of contribution and power of the court
In any proceedings for contribution under this division the amount of the contribution recoverable from any person shall be such as may be found by the court to be just and equitable having regard to the extent of that person’s responsibility for the damage; and the court shall have power to exempt any person from liability to make contribution, or to direct that the contribution to be recovered from any person shall amount to a complete indemnity.”
Several concurrent tortfeasors are persons who by their separate acts cause damage to the injured person.[585] Any apportionment is with reference to the extent to which the particular defendant’s conduct contributed to the damage suffered by the plaintiff and their comparative culpability.[586]
[585]Chapman v Hearse [1961] HCA 46; (1961) 106 CLR 112.
[586]Robinson v Fig Tree Pocket Equestrian Club Inc& Ors[2005] QCA 271 per Keane JA at [23].
For example, in Marketform Managing Agency Ltd v Ashcroft Super IGA Orange Pty Ltd[587], the New South Wales Court of Appeal upheld the apportionment of 10 per cent to the labour hire employer and 90 per cent to the host hirer company. This occurred where, despite reasonable efforts of the labour hire company to carry out inspections of the host employer’s premises, the labour hire company found no evidence of the risk that eventuated, resulting in the employee’s injury. Accordingly, the 10 per cent apportionment against the labour hire employer primarily arose out of the non-delegable character of the employer’s duty of care.
[587][2020] NSWCA 36.
In this case, I find that there were really no efforts by DPS to ensure the workplace was safe after 2014.
In this regard, I accept the evidence of Mr de Andrade and Ms Spaic that Mr Ferguson was not prevented from requesting access to the premises or from making safety suggestions. I did not accept Mr Ferguson’s evidence that there were ongoing WHS visits to the site after Mr Fanning’s report.
As against DPS, it was the employer with the non-delegable duty. As against MT, it controlled the workplace and had the system of work.
I consider that MT should bear the largest proportion of responsibility as it was in control of the workplace and had direct responsibility for the plaintiff.
I agree with the parties that MT is 75 per cent responsible and DPS is 25 per cent responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries.
QUANTUM
The general rule is that damages in tort are such that the injured party should receive compensation in a sum, which so far as money can do, will put that party in the same position as he or she would be in if the tort had not been committed.[588]
General Damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities
[588]Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2025] HCA 34; (2025) 99 ALJR 1348 at [24].
Despite my findings that the plaintiff gave evidence exaggerating the effect of the injury on his functional capacity, the fact remains that the plaintiff has suffered an L4/5 disc protrusion with left L5 radiculopathy, underwent surgery and he has an approximate 10 per cent whole person impairment.
He has also suffered an adjustment disorder with mixed, depressed and anxious mood.
I find he suffered symptoms and a loss of enjoyment and amenities of life as a result.
As against the first defendant, general damages must be assessed under section 306O of the WCRA. Schedule 14 of the regulations sets out the applicable ranges of ISVs.
Contrary to the plaintiff’s submissions in this case, I consider this is a moderate lumbar spine injury and item 91[589] applies. This is because I consider item 90 applies where, for example, there is a fracture involving at least a 25 per cent compression injury.
[589]Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld).
On the other hand, I consider item 91[590] more rather deals with disc prolapse.
[590]Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld).
The range is 5 to 15. I assess it at 12. I add a slight uplift of 2 for the psychiatric injury. The total is 14. This amounts to $26,100.
No interest may be awarded on past general damages.[591]
[591]Section 306N(1) of the WCRA.
The award of damages as against MT is at common law. I have had regard to the case of Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd[592] and Cameron v Foster,[593]the case relied on by the second defendant in its submissions.
[592][2024] QSC 142.
[593][2010] QSC 372.
Cameron is some 15 years old. Sawyer involved more serious injuries.[594]
[594]The accepted Orthopaedic Surgeon assessed a 16% WPI [291], [428]. I also note in Sawyer a total ISV was assessed at 19.
I assess general damages at $55,000. I award interest at 2 per cent per annum for 6.25 years on past general damages ($30,000) which I assess at $3,750.
Special Damages
Following appear to be the special damages:

Item	Amount assessed	Findings
Medicare refund[595] $15,441.05	$10,000	The plaintiff claims the entire amount. The second defendant submits it has not been proved that each consultation relates to the claim. The first defendant accepts the claim. When analysing the medical records (Exhibits 48, 53, 54 and 55), several items do not relate to the back injury[596], although some do. Doing the best I can I allow $10,000 for this item.
WorkCover hospital[597]	$9,575	I allow this item
WorkCover medical	$18,516.02	I allow this item
Public hospital	$3,179.87	I allow this item
Rehab	$8,046.05	I allow this item
Travel	$864.49	I allow this item
Pharmaceuticals	$482.24	The plaintiff submits that the PBS history should be relied on. The first defendant relies on the PBS history which shows that $382.24 has been spent on relevant medications. It submits that $100 is reasonable for over-the-counter medications in the absence of receipts. The second defendant makes no submission. I accept the first defendant’s submission.
Travel	$1,000	The plaintiff relies on Exhibit 4 claiming $3076.57. The first defendant submits that $500 for travel is reasonable. At the end of the day, I am not satisfied that all of the trips can be attributed to the back injury e.g. see consultation with Dr Paton 20 September 2022 (Exhibit 53 and Exhibit 48 page 8). I am prepared to allow $1,000.
Total	$51,663.67

[595]Exhibit 48.

[596]20 September 2022; 23 September 2022; 1 March 2022; 29 October 2024. Also, there is no evidence that all of the pathology tests on 4 September 2020; 26 September 2019; 8 January 2020; 24 January 2020; 13 March 2021 and 23 March 2021 involving Dr Taylor and Dr Morris are accident related.

[597]Exhibit 49.

With respect to the first defendant, I would allow interest on the total sum of $1,482.24[598] at the rate of 2.065 per cent per annum for 6.25 years, being an amount of $191.30. With respect to the second defendant interest at 5% per annum for 6.25 years is $463.20.
[598]The sum of the pharmaceutical and travel items as per the above table.
Future special damages
The plaintiff claims pain medication at $5 per week for 43 years and chiropractic treatment at $29.50 per week for a period of 5 years. Discounted on the 5 per cent tables, this is $9,778.82.
The first defendant submits that the court would award a nominal amount for future medication and travel, perhaps in the sum of $500.
The second defendant submits that no award should be made.
I note that no receipts were tendered proving expenditure on Panadol and the like. I would allow a modest amount for future medication and travel at $10 per month for 27 years (multiplier is 783). This is an amount of $1,957.50. I did not consider there was sufficient evidence justifying the necessity of ongoing chiropractic expenses.
Past economic loss
The plaintiffs work history discloses the following:
(a)Year ended 2014 - average weekly earnings $238.23
(b)Year ended 2015 - average weekly earnings $805.33
(c)Year ended 2016 - average weekly earnings $917.38
(d)Year ended 2017 - average weekly earnings $853.40
(e)Year ended 2018 - average weekly earnings $700
(f)Year ended 2019 - average weekly earnings $536.69[599]
[599]I note in that year he received $3,657 from Centrelink.
(g)Year ended 30 June 2020:
1.   Direct Personnel $1,550
2.   Centrelink $873
3.   WorkCover $34,394
(h)Year ended 30 June 2021:
1.   Centrelink $22,239
2.   WorkCover $830
(i)Year ended 30 June 2022:
1.   Centrelink $24,085
2.   Cbus Insurance payout $121,690 + $52,771
(j)Year ended 30 June 2023:
1.   Centrelink $22,272
(k)Year ended 30 June 2024:
1.   Centrelink $25,801
(l)Year ended 30 June 2025:
1.   Centrelink $23,069
The plaintiff was 34 years of age at the time of his injury and was employed on a fulltime basis by DPS. He was earning approximately $800 net per week at the time of the injury. He did of course have some Centrelink benefits paid in the 2018 and 2019 financial years, so he spent some time unemployed. His average income was about $690 net per week.[600]
[600]I note that section 60 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) requires a net amount to be used.
Insofar as the first defendant is concerned, s 306J of the WCRA applies. This section provides:
“306J When earnings cannot be precisely calculated
(1)This section applies if a court is considering making an award of damages for loss of earnings that are unable to be precisely calculated by reference to a defined weekly loss.
(2)The court may only award damages if it is satisfied that the worker has suffered or will suffer loss having regard to the person’s age, work history, actual loss of earnings, any permanent impairment and any other relevant matters.
(3)If the court awards damages, the court must state the assumptions on which the award is based and the methodology it used to arrive at the award.
(4)The limitation mentioned in section 306I(2) applies to an award of damages under this section.”
The plaintiff submits that I should award past economic loss at the rate of $800 net per week for the period of 324 weeks. This amounts to $266,520.
The first defendant submits that the evidence supports the view that the plaintiff’s extensive travel and gym routines tells against him being unable to work. It is submitted I should use the sum of $690 per week, which was the average he earned at the time of the injury. It is submitted that I should assess past loss up until August 2020 or February 2021, which represents a period when he was cleared to return to work and allowing six to 12 months for retraining. This amounts to a range of $37,950 to $55,890. In oral submissions it was accepted that, bearing in mind there is an ongoing incapacity for certain forms of employment, I could assess a global of $25,000[601] or the sum of $300 per week for the period say October 2020 to the present day.[602] This amounts to a range of $25,000 to $93,600. Thus, the total of $62,950 to $131,550.
[601]Transcript day 8 page 76.20.
[602]Transcript day 8 page 80.15.
The second defendant submits that by January 2020 the plaintiff was able to have returned to work and total past loss should be $800 net per week for a period of 42 weeks, a total sum of $34,057.14. In oral submissions Mr Hickey conceded that, in light of the ongoing impairment of working capacity, a global sum of $40,000 to $50,000 could be awarded for the period January 2020 until today.[603] This is a total of $74,057.14 to $84,057.14.
[603]Transcript day 8 page 47.10.
In assessing damages for economic loss, the High Court in Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd[604] noted:
(a)There is some degree of speculation necessary when assessing economic loss (page 639).
(b)The ascertainment of economic loss involves an evaluation of possibilities (page 639).
(c)The court assesses the degree of probability that an event would have or might occur and adjusts the measure of damages accordingly (page 643).
[604][1990] HCA 20; (1990) 169 CLR 638.
It must also be appreciated that the loss to be assessed is a loss of earning capacity, not a loss of earnings. The question is whether as a result of the breach the plaintiff has been rendered less capable of earning income. The court looks at the capacity for work before the employment he or she was engaged in at the time of breach.[605]
[605]Medlin v The State Government Insurance Commission [1995] HCA 5; (1995) 182 CLR 1.
I have difficulties accepting the evidence of Mrs Coles as it relies on information given by the plaintiff which is not entirely accurate. This calls into question her report.
However, in light of the plaintiff’s whole person impairment, age, work history, actual loss of earnings and his inability to do heavy factory jobs, I am satisfied the plaintiff has suffered economic loss and will continue to do so in the future.
As I have said, I accept the first defendant’s submissions that the plaintiff would have been able to return to some form of employment by early 2020 but that he needed 6-12 months for retraining.[606]
[606]See Exhibit K [146]-[149].
I have found the plaintiff was able to return to some form of lighter employment by January 2021. I consider in the approximate 18-month period before this, this would have been difficult bearing in mind his only experience was working as a fabricator/moulder in a factory.
I accept the first defendant’s submission that the loss should be assessed at $690 net per week which I consider better represents the amount of loss for that period. I assess the loss from the date of the incident until January 2021 (78 weeks) at $690 per week. This amounts to $53,820.
Thereafter, I consider the plaintiff had the capacity to work in lighter jobs (excluding the heavy factory work).
The first defendant conceded a loss of $300 per week.[607] I consider that to be a reasonable estimate of the monetary value of the effect of impairment bearing in mind his income most likely would have increased over the period.[608]
[607]Transcript day 8 page 74, 75 and 80.
[608]It is 30% of $900 – the wages figure contended for by the plaintiff.
I therefore assess a loss of $300 per week for the period January 2021 until the present time (246 weeks) - a total of $73,800.
I therefore assess total loss at $127,620. There should be some discounting of this sum because of the evidence concerning the wrist injury and the degeneration. I note in Peebles v WorkCover[609]it was said that the selection of the appropriate discount rate involves the discretionary judgment of the court, and the discounting of pre-trial loss is different to future loss, as the circumstances regarding past loss are known.
[609][2021] QCA 21 at [20]-[22].
I discount past economic loss by 10 per cent for contingencies, namely the vicissitudes of life and in this case the possibility of the onset of a disc prolapse because of degeneration and the effects of the wrist injury.
The sum for past economic loss is therefore calculated at $114,858.
With respect to the first defendant, interest on this sum for 6.25 years at 2.065 per cent[610] (less the $41,095.17 paid by WorkCover) is $9,520.01. With respect to the second defendant, interest at 5% per annum is $23,050.88.
[610]Section 306N of the WCRA – ½ of the Ten Year Treasury Bond rate i.e. 4.13%.
The plaintiff claims lost superannuation at 9.5 per cent. The first defendant submits it should be 10 per cent. The second defendant submits 9.5 per cent.
Bearing in mind the changes in the rate since 2019,[611] I consider 10 per cent is appropriate.
[611]From October 2019 it went from 9.5 per cent to 11.5 per cent. It increased to 12 per cent on 1 July 2025. See Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth).
Loss of past superannuation at 10 per cent is $11,485.80.
Future economic loss
The plaintiff submits for a sum of $900 net per week for 27 years discounted by 50 per cent. This amounts to $352,350. Mr Charrington submits the plaintiff cannot work.
The first defendant submits that the plaintiff’s claim is based on the fact he is incapable of work. If Doctors Tuffley and Labrom are accepted, then this contention is not correct, and he can work in various occupations. The first defendant relies on the fact the plaintiff obtained the private investigation qualifications quite quickly. In the circumstances, $100,000 to $130,000 is appropriate, which is based on a weekly amount of $150 to $200 discounted by 15 per cent.
The second defendant submits that on the report of Dr Labrom, it would not be open to make any award for substantial future economic loss. At best, a global award of $25,000 would be made.
In respect of future economic loss, this involves an exercise of prediction – what the future would have been if the injury had not occurred and what it is likely to be. Often such damages are at best an estimate.[612]
[612]Todorovic v Waller [1981] HCA 72; (1981) 150 CLR 402 at p 412-413.
In this case the plaintiff is 40 years old. I consider that he can do a range of more sedentary work and is not unemployable. But I find he is more vulnerable on the open labour market and can no longer work in heavy factory occupations.
I accept the plaintiff’s submission that the starting point is a salary of $900 net per week. It has been 6.25 years since the accident and salaries have increased since then. I consider the amount of $300 per week (which is the same amount I used for past economic loss) is an appropriate estimate of the monetary calculation of the impairment of earning capacity. As I have said this is some 30 % of the full sum. [613]
[613]I note it may be appropriate for a judge to assess a claimant’s residual earning capacity as a percentage of his or her pre-accident earning capacity see Hays Specialist Recruitment (Australia) Pty Ltd v Carey-Schofield [2025] QCA 161 at [219].

I therefore assess a sum of $300 per week for the period of 27 years. For a 5 per cent discount, the multiplier is 783. This equals $234,900.
I consider this amount needs to be discounted because of the vicissitudes of life, the existing degenerative condition and the effect of the wrist injury. In Peebles v WorkCover,[614] the trial judge had discounted future economic loss by 50 per cent. This was found to be excessive.
[614][2021] QCA 21.
In this case when I consider the medical evidence and the possibility that the pre-existing condition may have “kicked in” in 10 years, I consider that a 20 per cent discount is appropriate. In this regard, whilst it has been said that a conventional discount is 15%, this is not always the case and depends on all the circumstances.[615]
[615]Qantas Airways Ltd v Fisher [2014] QCA 329 at [74].
I assess future economic loss in the sum at $187,920.
I find loss of future superannuation at 12.5 per cent is $23,490.
Care
It is common ground that damages for gratuitous care cannot be awarded against the first defendant under Part 9 Division 3 of the WCRA. Damages for care can be awarded against the second defendant.
The plaintiff submits that the claim for past care and assistance is based on the report of Mrs Coles and there was no requirement to call the care providers. It is submitted that care from 11 July 2019 until 22 August 2022 (162 weeks) is for four hours per week at $35 per hour. For the period 22 August 2022 until today, it is two hours per week at $35 per hour. This amounts to $33,600 for past care. For future care, 1 hour per week is claimed at $35 per hour for 43 years. This amounts to $27,905.50.
The second defendant submits that the plaintiff has failed to call material witnesses to support his case. It is submitted the plaintiff’s evidence cannot be relied upon.
As I have noted, I have difficulties accepting the evidence of Mrs Coles as it relies on information given by the plaintiff which is not entirely accurate. This calls into question her report. Also, the fact that care providers were not called deprives the court of the means of checking and corroborating the plaintiff’s allegations.
On my findings, the plaintiff was able to return to work by January 2021. I conclude in light of his gym work and overseas travel he could well look after himself. I do not propose to order care after this point. Dr Tuffley considered there was no need for ongoing care. I accept this.
Dr Todman in his reports noted the plaintiff needed care of up to four hours a week.[616]
[616]Exhibit 19A (2 July 2020) page 4.9 and 19C (13 May 2021) page 5.6. There is no mention of care in the 2025 report.
In all of the circumstances, I assess past care at 4 hours per week for 78 weeks i.e. July 2019 until January 2021 at $35 per hour. This amounts to $10,920.
I do not find any damages for care payable after that point. In light of the evidence of travel and of the gym work and of his functional capacity, I consider he does not require the care of anyone else regularly.
Fox v Wood
This is $5,870.
SUMMARY
Following is the summary of damages I have assessed:

Item

DPS

MT

General Damages

$26,100

$55,000

Interest on general damages 2 per cent on $20,000 for 6 years

Nil

$3,750

Special Damages

$51,663.67

$51,663.67

Interest on special damages

$191.30

$463.20

Future special damages

$1,957.50

$1,957.50

Past Economic Loss

$114,858

$114,858

Interest on past economic loss

$9,520.01

$23,050.88

Past superannuation

$11,485.80

$11,485.80

Future economic loss

$187,920

$187,920

Future super

$23,490

$23,490

Past care

Nil

$10,920

Fox v Wood

$5,870

$5,870

Total Damages

$433,056.28

$490,429.05

The WorkCover refund is $81,276.60.
Orders
I make the following orders:
I give judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $433,056.28 (inclusive of the WorkCover refund of $81,276.60).
I give judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $490,429.05 (inclusive of the WorkCover refund of $81,276.60).
Pursuant to section 6(c) of the Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld), the first defendant recover contribution from the second defendant in the sum of $324,792.21, being 75% of the judgment against the first defendant.
I will hear the parties on the question of costs.

CITATION:	Singleton v Direct Personnel Services Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QSC 259
PARTIES:	LUCAS JOHN SINGLETON (plaintiff) v DIRECT PERSONNEL SERVICES PTY LTD ABN 19 003 606 700 (first defendant) AND MINERAL TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD ABN 52 105 309 260 (second defendant)
FILE NO:	SC 218 of 2022
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	13 October 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27 August 2025
JUDGE:	Smith J
ORDER:	1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $433,056.28 (inclusive of the WorkCover refund of $81,276.60). 2. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $490,429.05 (inclusive of the WorkCover refund of $81,276.60). 3. Pursuant to section 6(c) of the Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld), the first defendant recover contribution from the second defendant in the sum of $324,792.21, being 75% of the judgment against the first defendant. 4. I will hear the parties on the question of costs.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – Particular defendants – employers – where the plaintiff alleges he was injured in a workplace accident – where the plaintiff worked for a labour hire company – where the plaintiff was injured in the workplace of the host employer – whether each of the defendants breached the duty of care owed to the plaintiff – extent of the duty of care owed – whether plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence – whether the employer liable or whether the host employer liable – the degree of contribution as between the defendants DAMAGES – whether the plaintiff sustained a back injury and consequent psychiatric injury – whether the plaintiff exaggerated the effect of the injury on his functional capacity – whether aggravation of pre-existing condition - quantum of damages Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld) ss 6, 7 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) s 19 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 305B, 305C, 305D, 305E, 306N, 306O, 306P Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld) schedule 14 Astley v AusTrust Ltd [1999] HCA 6; (1999) 197 CLR 1, cited Bankstown Foundary Pty Ltd v Braistina [1986] HCA 20; (1986) 160 CLR 301, applied Cameron v Foster [2010] QSC 372, cited Chapman v Hearse [1961] HCA 46; (1961) 106 CLR 112, cited Czatyrtko v Edith Cowan University [2005] HCA 14; (2005) 79 ALJR 832, applied Fox v Wood [1981] HCA 41; (1981) 148 CLR 438, applied Griffith v State of Queensland [2011] QCA 57; [2012] 2 Qd R 532, cited Hays Specialist Recruitment (Australia) Pty Ltd v Carey- Schofield [2025] QCA 161, applied Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298, cited Kerle v BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd [2016] QSC 304; (2016) 262 IR 381, considered Kondis v State Transport Authority [1984] HCA 61; (1984) 154 CLR 672, applied Liftronic Pty Ltd v Unver [2001] HCA 24; (2001) 75 ALJR 867, applied Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 20; (1990) 169 CLR 638, applied March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506, applied Marketform Managing Agency Ltd v Ashcroft Super IGA Orange Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 36, considered Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission [1995] HCA 5; (1995) 182 CLR 1, applied Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61; (2000) 205 CLR 254, applied McLean v Tedman [1984] HCA 60; (1984) 155 CLR 306, applied McLean’s Roylen Cruises Pty Ltd v McEwan [1984] HCA 43; (1984) 58 ALJR 42, considered Parry v Woolworths [2009] QCA 26; [2010] 1 Qd R 1, cited Peebles v WorkCover Queensland [2021] QCA 21, applied Prasad v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 147, cited Purkess v Crittenden [1965] HCA 34; (1965) 114 CLR 164, cited Qantas Airways Ltd v Fisher [2014] QCA 329, applied Robinson v Fig Tree Pocket Equestrian Club Inc [2005] QCA 271, applied Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 142, considered Spencer v Downie and Anor [2019] QSC 98, considered Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 1; (1986) 160 CLR 16, applied Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2025] HCA 34; (2025) 99 ALJR 1348, applied Strong v Woolworths Ltd [2012] HCA 5; (2012) 246 CLR 182, Applied Super Pty Ltd v SJP Formwork (Aust) Pty Ltd (1992) 29 NSWLR 549, considered Swain v Waverley MC [2005] HCA 4; (2005) 220 CLR 517, applied Tabet v Gett [2010] HCA 12; (2010) 240 CLR 537, cited Tapp v Australian Bushman’s Campdraft & Rodeo Association Limited [2022] HCA 11; (2022) 273 CLR 454, applied Thompson v Woolworths (Qld) Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 19; (2005) 221 CLR 234, applied TNT Australia Pty Ltd v Christie [2003] NSWCA 47; (2003) 65 NSWLR 1, applied Todorovic v Waller [1981] HCA 72; (1981) 150 CLR 402, applied Vozza v Tooth & Co Ltd [1964] HCA 29; (1964) 112 CLR 316, applied Wallace v Kam [2013] HCA 19; (2013) 250 CLR 375, applied Watts v Rake [1960] HCA 58; (1960) 108 CLR 158, applied Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon [2003] HCA 48; (2003) 200 ALR 447, applied Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12; (1980) 146 CLR 40, applied
COUNSEL:	Mr B Charrington KC with Dr K Roche for the plaintiff Ms S McNeil for the first defendant Mr M Hickey OAM KC with Ms A Crawford for the second defendant
SOLICITORS:	Attwood Marshall for the plaintiff Hopgood Ganim Lawyers for the first defendant Meridian Lawyers for the second defendant

Item	DPS	MT
General Damages	$26,100	$55,000
Interest on general damages 2 per cent on $20,000 for 6 years	Nil	$3,750
Special Damages	$51,663.67	$51,663.67
Interest on special damages	$191.30	$463.20
Future special damages	$1,957.50	$1,957.50
Past Economic Loss	$114,858	$114,858
Interest on past economic loss	$9,520.01	$23,050.88
Past superannuation	$11,485.80	$11,485.80
Future economic loss	$187,920	$187,920
Future super	$23,490	$23,490
Past care	Nil	$10,920
Fox v Wood	$5,870	$5,870
Total Damages	$433,056.28	$490,429.05