• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

Hemmant's List Hemmant's List

0735053969
Menu
Menu
  • About
    • The story of Hemmant and Lord Atkin
    • How does the list work?
    • How does a barrister join the list?
    • The Clerk
    • Emerging Art Program
    • Equitable Briefing
    • Former List Members (Judicial Appointments)
  • Barristers
  • Mediators & Arbitrators
  • Mediation Centre
  • Areas of Practice
      • Administrative & Public Law
      • Alternative Dispute Resolution
      • Appellate
      • Civil Litigation
      • Commercial Law
      • Crime
      • Employment & Industrial Relations
      • Equity & Trusts
      • Estate Law
      • Family Law
      • Human rights law
      • Inquests & Inquiries
      • Intellectual property law
      • International law
      • Marine law
      • Medical Negligence
      • Native Title Law
      • Personal Injuries and Health Law
      • Property Law
      • Resources, Construction & Infrastructure Law
      • Taxation Law
  • NEWS

NEWS

WORKCOVER NOT BOUND IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS FOR DAMAGES BY DETERMINATION THAT A PERSON IS A WORKER FOR PURPOSES OF COMPENSATION

April 23, 2018

 

Mr Stankovich allegedly suffered injuries performing tiling works for the Defendant and he applied to WorkCover for compensation. His application was accepted.  WorkCover issued Mr Stankovich a Notice of Assessment offering him a lump sum.  Mr Stankovich elected to seek damages.  WorkCover responded to the claim by denying Mr Stankovich was a “worker” within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (‘the Act’).

The Defendant’s contention was that, having determined the Plaintiff was a worker for the purposes of offering a lump sum, WorkCover was bound by that decision, and therefore bound to indemnify the Defendant in respect of the proceedings as an employer under the Act.

The Defendant contended that the scheme of the Act supported this construction in that s 237 makes the entitlement to bring proceedings for damages conditional on a determination by WorkCover and that if WorkCover could then contend that a person was not a worker, it could avoid the extensive provisions for review and appeal.

The defendant also contended that s 48 required an employer to have insurance against liability for damages and compensation and therefore the Act must intend that a person cannot be a worker for the purposes for one and not the other. Porter QC DCJ did not agree.

The Defendant contended that a person who has been found a to be a worker has to elect between a lump sum and seeking damages and that Parliament cannot have intended that such an election might mean the person would get nothing because they were then found not to have sustained the injury as a worker as required by the Act.  Porter QC DCJ observed that on any construction, by electing to seek damages a person is taking a risk.

List members Richard Douglas QC and Kevin Holyoak appeared for the Defendant and List member Geoffrey Diehm QC appeared for the Third Party in Stankovich v SS Family Pty Ltd & Anor [2018] QDC 54.

The application was dismissed.

Find the case: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QDC/2018/054

Share
  • Linkedin
  • Facebook
  • Gmail

Contact the Clerk

Hemmant's List Centre Level 6 Santos Place 32 Turbot Street Brisbane QLD 4000
+61 7 3505 3969 admin@hemmantslist.com.au
Submit a Briefing Request   Online Briefing
LinkedIn

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

© 2025 Hemmant's List
  • Facility Bookings
  • Privacy Policy
  • Sitemap
ABN 87 612 554 551
Web Design by iCreate Advertising