Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority - [2025] VSCA 50

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2024 0063

SPOTLESS FACILITY SERVICES PTY LTD	Applicant
v
VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, KENNEDY JJA and J FORREST AJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 March 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 March 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 50
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2024] VSC 237 (Forbes J)

---

NEGLIGENCE – Causation – Worker injured after slipping on liquid spilt on floor – Accident compensation payments – Claim for indemnity under s 369 of Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 in respect of payments – Whether injury caused under circumstances creating legal liability in the applicant to pay damages – Whether trial judge erred in finding applicant negligent – Whether judge erred in concluding that injury was caused by applicant’s negligence – Appeal allowed.

Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, s 369; Wrongs Act 1958, Part X, ss 48, 49, 51 and 52.

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420, referred to; Strong v Woolworths Ltd (2012) 246 CLR 182, discussed.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Ms RL Kaye KC with Ms MS Cameron
Respondent:		Mr PH Solomon KC with Mr J Forrest
Solicitors
Applicant:	Barry Nilsson Lawyers
Respondent:	IDP Lawyers

BEACH JA
KENNEDY JA
J FORREST AJA:

Brett McGinnes was employed by Geelong Grammar School (‘the school’) as a property manager. On 16 March 2016, Mr McGinnes was injured in the course of his employment when he slipped in the main dining hall (‘the Dining Hall’) at the school, and fell heavily (‘the incident’). As a result of the incident, Mr McGinnes suffered an injury to his cervical spine which has required surgical interventions.
Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd (‘Spotless’) held two relevant contracts with the school at the time of the incident, being a contract to provide catering services (‘the catering contract’) and a contract to provide cleaning services (‘the cleaning contract’) at the school’s premises — including the Dining Hall.
Following the incident, Mr McGinnes made a WorkSafe claim against the school, which was accepted, and he commenced to receive compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (‘the Act’). Mr McGinnes, in a common law proceeding, also claimed damages from two defendants: the school and Spotless. In his claim for compensation and claim for damages, Mr McGinnes alleged that he slipped in the Dining Hall on spilt liquid, which he believed to be soup.
In a separate proceeding, the Victorian WorkCover Authority (‘the VWA’ or ‘the Authority’) claimed an indemnity against Spotless pursuant to s 369(1) of the Act on the basis that the injury sustained by Mr McGinnes occurred in circumstances which created a legal liability in Spotless to pay damages to Mr McGinnes. Section 369(1) of the Act relevantly provided:
Where an injury or a death for which compensation has been paid, or is or may be payable, by the Authority … was caused under circumstances creating a liability…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Aut... and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] VSCA 50
Decision Date: 28 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd versus Victorian WorkCover Authority, the dispute involved a worker who sustained injuries after slipping on a liquid spill on the floor. The Victorian WorkCover Authority had made accident compensation payments to the worker and sought indemnity from Spotless Facility Services under section 369 of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013. The legal issues that arose in this case were whether the injury was caused by circumstances that created a legal liability for Spotless Facility Services to pay damages, and whether the trial judge made any errors in finding Spotless Facility Services negligent and concluding that the injury was caused by their negligence.

The court examined the evidence presented in the case and considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law. The court held that the trial judge did not err in finding Spotless Facility Services negligent, and that the injury was caused by their negligence. The court also found that the statutory provisions and case law supported the conclusion that Spotless Facility Services had a legal liability to pay damages for the worker's injuries. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the decision of the trial judge was affirmed.

This decision highlights the importance of taking reasonable care to prevent accidents in the workplace and the potential legal liability that can arise from failing to do so. Employers must take steps to ensure that their workplace is safe for employees and that any hazards are identified and addressed promptly. Failure to do so can result in legal liability for any injuries that occur as a result of the hazard. The decision also reinforces the importance of following statutory provisions and case law when determining legal liability in workplace injury cases. Employers should be aware of their legal obligations and take steps to ensure that they comply with relevant legislation and common law principles.

No further orders were made in this case. The decision of the trial judge was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. The Victorian WorkCover Authority was entitled to recover the accident compensation payments made to the worker from Spotless Facility Services.

Orders