What happened

In 2012, the truck driver was directed to help dismantle scaffolding and was struck by a falling metal component while stacking materials. DJSS employed him, but Synergy directed his daily work. After receiving workers compensation, he claimed damages against Synergy and the Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer as insurer of the deregistered employer.

The issues

The appeal addressed discoverability for limitation purposes, the labour-hire employer's non-delegable duty and contribution between the defendants. It also examined whether s 151Z of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 required repayment of compensation or adjustments to the damages and indemnity orders.

The court's decision

The Court rejected the limitation defence and held that the employer was also liable to the worker, but Synergy had not established an entitlement to contribution. The 2023 reasons reserved final orders for further submissions. In 2024, the Court abandoned its proposed deduction for medical expenses and explained that its proposed orders would preserve the AUD 1,356,533.39 judgment against Synergy.

What this case shows

The duty owed to the worker and the allocation of financial responsibility between tortfeasors are distinct. Lack of direct site control did not discharge the labour-hire employer's duty, but establishing that liability did not determine a contribution share in Synergy's favour.

Why another case may differ

Different statutory damages regimes governed the employer and third-party claims arising from this 2012 injury. The limitation finding turned on the worker's knowledge and the advice he received, rather than a general extension rule. The 2024 reasons deferred pronouncement of orders for 14 days; these materials do not establish subsequent enforcement, reconciliation or net recovery.

Applying it to your claim

Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.

Considering a second opinion? →