In Paul v Ashcroft Supa IGA Orange Pty Ltd [2019] NSW DC 101 (5 April 2019) an apprentice butcher in host employment was awarded $578,689 following a slip and fall on sausage mince.
In Capar v SPG Investments Pty Ltd (t/a Lidcombe Power Centre) (No 5) [2019] NSWSC 507, the New South Wales Supreme Court reinforced the principle that, except in unusual circumstances, occupiers and employers will not be liable for injuries to security guards where the injury is caused by criminals.
In Williams v Metcash Trading Ltd [2019] NSWCA 94 (3 May 2019), the New South Wales Court of Appeal unanimously overturned a verdict in favour of Metcash in a distribution centre claim brought by a picker.
Injured workers often apply out of time for review of insurers’ decisions in statutory workers’ compensation claims on the basis of ‘special circumstances’. But what really constitutes ‘special circumstances’? A recent Court of Appeal decision clarifies the position.
In December 2017, we published an article considering how courts in the United States and the United Kingdom had treated Uber drivers – that is, whether they were considered employees or independent contractors. Since then, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has handed down a decision that suggests that Uber drivers, at least in Victoria, might actually be independent contractors.
Uber now operates around the world and has annual revenue of about US$6.5 billion (and a valuation of about US$80 billion), in no small part thanks to the hundreds of thousands of people it calls its ‘driver partners’. But are ‘driver partners’ employees or independent contractors?
In the recent case of Brisbane Youth Service Inc v Beven [2017] QCA 211, a majority of the Queensland Court of Appeal found that an employer was negligent in allowing a family support worker, Ms Beven, to provide support services to a client who then assaulted her, which resulted in Ms Beven suffering a psychological injury.
Transport companies enter into a variety of contractual arrangements with drivers. In many cases, it can be difficult to determine whether a particular driver is an employee or a subcontractor. Just because the driver is called a subcontractor does not mean they actually are one.
After his claim was initially dismissed by the District Court, Mr Berhane was today successful in his appeal to the Court of Appeal.
In the recent case of Pratt v Return to Work SA, the South Australian Employment Tribunal had to determine whether injuries sustained by a casual farm labourer were compensable.
A recent decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory has provided guidance on the extent of an employer’s duty to employees performing ‘simple and commonplace’ tasks.
In the recent case of Wright v Glencore Queensland Limited [2016] QSC 247, the Queensland Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a self-insurer could withdraw its agreement for a particular doctor to perform a second degree of permanent impairment (DPI) assessment.