Victorian WorkCover Authority v Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd

In the case of Victorian WorkCover Authority v Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, acting on behalf of a worker injured in a workplace accident, sought compensation from the defendant, a cleaning and catering contractor engaged by a school. The dispute centred on the indemnity claim brought by the contractor against the school authority, pursuant to section 369(1) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic). The central legal issues were the content of the duty of care owed by the contractor, particularly in the context of the school’s system for intermittent inspection of slip hazards, and whether the contractor’s lack of a formal inspection system contributed to the worker’s injury. The court also had to determine whether the absence of a regular inspection system was a cause of the injury and how to apportion damages between the defendants.

The court meticulously examined the respective roles and responsibilities of the school and the contractor in maintaining a safe working environment. It considered whether the contractor had an adequate system in place for detecting slip hazards, despite the school’s intermittent inspections. The court assessed whether the absence of a formal inspection regime by the contractor was a factor that led to the worker’s injury, weighing this against the school’s inspection efforts. In reaching its decision, the court referred to precedents such as Strong v Woolworths Ltd and Kocis v SE Dickens Pty Ltd, which provided guidance on the apportionment of damages and the extent of legal liability in similar scenarios. The court concluded that while both parties had a duty to ensure workplace safety, the contractor's lack of an effective system for hazard detection was a significant factor contributing to the accident.

The court found that the contractor had not established an adequate system to detect slip hazards, which was a material cause of the worker's injury. It held that the absence of such a system was a breach of the contractor's duty of care. The court apportioned liability between the school and the contractor, determining that the contractor was primarily responsible for the failure to implement a suitable hazard detection system. This decision was based on the understanding that both parties shared the responsibility for workplace safety, but the contractor's actions were more directly linked to the injury. The court ordered the contractor to pay a significant portion of the damages to the worker, while the school's liability was reduced accordingly.