Legal Research
Cases
Victorian WorkCover Authority v Game

Victorian WorkCover Authority v Game

Case [2007] VSCA 86 11 May 2007

Contract Formation

Breach of Contract

Contract of Service vs. Independent Contractor

Vicarious Liability

Accident Compensation

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

No. 3761 of 2006

VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY

and

MALCOLM RANKING PTY LTD

ANNETTE GAME

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL ACJ, NETTLE AND ASHLEY JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	23 April 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 May 2007
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSCA 86

---

Accident Compensation – Widow’s claim for compensation – Whether claimant’s late husband was working under a contract of service when fatal injuries sustained – Whether, upon facts found, it was open to primary judge to so determine – Whether judge erred by not asking himself whether arrangement under which deceased was performing work at the critical time was distinctly different to, or, objectively, was intended to differ from, arrangements under which deceased had worked as an independent contractor – Whether judge erred by determining that putative employer would have been vicariously liable for any negligent conduct of deceased, and then reasoning that deceased must have been employed under a contract of service – Deceased a member of a partnership at the time when he performed pertinent work – Whether judge found that the work was partnership work – Whether judge concluded that in performing that work deceased did so under an individual contract of employment – Whether judge’s reasoning internally contradictory – Whether judge’s reasons adequate – No error of law demonstrated – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellants	Mr J Ruskin, QC and Mr P M E Wischusen	Wisewoulds
For the Respondent	Mr M O’Loghlen, QC and Mr R W Dyer	Robinson Gill

MAXWELL ACJ:

I have had the considerable advantage of reading in draft the reasons of Ashley JA. For the reasons given by his Honour, I too would dismiss the appeal.

NETTLE JA:

I agree with Ashley JA, for the reasons which his Honour gives, that the appeal should be dismissed.

ASHLEY JA:

Lennox Game (“Mr Game” or “the deceased”) suffered fatal injuries on 15 October 2002 when, whilst digging a trench at premises in South Yarra in preparation for laying footings for a perimeter garden wall, the wall of a shed on the adjacent property collapsed on top of him. His widow claimed compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (“the Act”) from Malcolm Rankin Pty Ltd (“Rankin”) the builder on the site.

The claim was put on the alternative bases that, at the pertinent time, Mr Game –

· Had entered into a contract of service with Rankin, or was working under such a contract.

· Was a person the circumstances of whose working fell within the description “or otherwise” which is found in the definition of “worker” in s 5(1) of the Act.

· Was deemed to have been working under a contract of service with Rankin by operation of s 8(1) of the Act.

The appellants – that is, Victorian WorkCover Authority and Rankin – denied that Mr Game, at the relevant time, was either a “worker” as defined or a working contractor within…

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.

Continue reading Victorian WorkCover Authority v Game

Details

AGLC: Victorian WorkCover Authority v Game [2007] VSCA 86
Case: [2007] VSCA 86
Decision Date: 11 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Victorian WorkCover Authority contested a widow’s claim for workers' compensation after her husband’s death, focusing on whether he was employed under a contract of service when he sustained fatal injuries. The widow argued that he was a contracted worker, while the Authority maintained that he was an independent contractor. The dispute reached the court, which had to determine the legal relationship between the deceased and the putative employer at the time of the accident.

The court was tasked with deciding whether the primary judge erred in determining that the deceased was working under a contract of service. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the judge properly considered whether the arrangement under which the deceased performed work at the critical time was distinctly different from his previous independent contractor status. Additionally, the court had to evaluate if the judge's reasoning was internally contradictory and whether his conclusions were adequately supported by the evidence. The central issue was whether the judge correctly identified the nature of the deceased's work arrangement and if he was liable for any negligence by the deceased.

The court found no error in the judge's determination. The judge correctly assessed the facts and concluded that the deceased was performing work under a contract of service. The judge's reasoning was coherent and adequately supported by the evidence presented. The court noted that the deceased was a member of a partnership when the pertinent work was performed, and the judge correctly identified this as partnership work. However, the court also found that the deceased performed that work under an individual contract of employment, which aligned with the judge’s findings. The court rejected the widow's argument that the judge's reasoning was contradictory or inadequate.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the original decision of the primary judge. The court upheld the finding that the deceased was working under a contract of service at the time of the accident, and there was no demonstrated error of law in the judge's reasoning or conclusions.

Orders