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
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Singleton v Direct Personnel Services Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Singleton v Direct Personnel Services Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 259
Case
[2025] QSC 259
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Singleton v Direct Personnel Services Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Singleton, brought an action against two defendants, seeking damages for injuries sustained in a workplace accident. Singleton worked for Direct Personnel Services (DPS), a labour hire company, and was contracted out to work at MT, the host employer. Singleton claimed he suffered injuries in the course of his employment with MT, and both DPS and MT were liable for the injuries. The court was tasked with determining whether each defendant breached their duty of care, the extent of that duty, and the liability of each party. Additionally, the court had to assess whether Singleton was guilty of contributory negligence, and if so, to what extent, and whether the employer or the host employer bore the primary liability.
The court considered several legal issues, including the specific duty of care owed by DPS and MT to Singleton. It assessed the evidence regarding the training Singleton received, the safety compliance measures in place, and the nature of the task Singleton was performing at the time of the injury. The court also had to determine whether Singleton exaggerated the impact of the injury on his functional capacity and whether there was any aggravation of pre-existing conditions. The quantum of damages, taking into account both physical and psychiatric injuries, was another significant point of contention.
In reaching its decision, the court weighed the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence presented. The court observed that the plaintiff had a history of physical work and injuries, which impacted its assessment of the severity of the injuries claimed. It also noted that the plaintiff’s literacy difficulties might have influenced his ability to comprehend safety instructions and procedures. The court concluded that both defendants breached their duty of care to Singleton, with DPS bearing a larger share of the responsibility due to its oversight role. The court found Singleton to be partially at fault for his injuries, attributing 25% of the liability to him. The final judgment awarded Singleton substantial damages against both defendants, with DPS primarily liable and MT secondarily liable. DPS was also ordered to recover a portion of the judgment from MT, reflecting their respective contributions to the liability.
Orders
Orders of the court
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.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
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 CASEPlaintiffEvidence 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.