Australia: Labour Hire Company - scope of duty owed – apportionment between employer and host employer

Curwoods Case Note
Last Updated: 26 January 2012
Article by Samantha Thorndike

Judgment date: 22 December 2011

Clarence Valley Council v Macpherson [2011] NSWCA 422

New South Wales Court of Appeal1

In Brief

  • In determining any breach of an employer's duty of care, the relevant consideration is whether the employer knows or ought to have known equipment provided was unsafe, not necessarily what workplace law or industry standards and regulations prescribe.
  • In determining apportionment between a labour hire employer and a host employer, it is necessary to look at the respective degrees of departure from the standard of care and the relative importance of the acts of those parties in causing the damage.
  • The Court of Appeal will only review a primary judge's findings with respect to damages if the compensation assessed is so inadequate as to be beyond the limits of what a sound discretionary judgment could reasonably adopt.


On 30 October 2008, the respondent to the appeal, Robert Macpherson (plaintiff) sustained a severe twisting injury to his right wrist together with a fractured metacarpal. The injury occurred whilst the plaintiff was using a chainsaw to drill holes into trees to enable them to be poisoned. The plaintiff was employed by a labour hire company, APS Pacific Pty Limited (APS), who had hired the plaintiff's services to the appellant to the appeal, Clarence Valley Council (Council).

The plaintiff brought proceedings against the Council for breaching their duty of care, akin to that of an employer, in failing to provide adequate and safe equipment, and in particular failing to provide a chainsaw fitted with a clutch.

District Court

The primary judge in the District Court, Flannery DCJ, handed down her judgment on 16 March 2011 with a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $536,880.47. Her Honour assessed damages for non-economic loss, economic loss, medical expenses and domestic assistance and reduced the total by 15% to take into account a deduction under s 151Z of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 for APS's share of responsibility. The Council appealed the decision with respect to liability, apportionment and damages.

The primary judge discussed the requirements for breach of duty of care found at s 5B(1) and (2) of the Civil Liability Act, 2002 (CLA). In particular, the primary judge found that the risk of harm was foreseeable and not insignificant and the likelihood of the harm occurring was probable. The primary judge relied on an Injury Form completed by the Council within 12 hours of the injury, which stated that the likelihood of the incident occurring was "medium" and the recommended "corrective action" was to always use a powered boring machine with a torque clutch. It was relevant that the Council had in their possession on the day a chainsaw with a clutch. Accordingly, the primary judge concluded that a reasonable person in the Council's position would have provided a torque-limiting clutch with the chainsaw provided to the plaintiff.

Court of Appeal

Tobias AJA delivered the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court dealt with each of the Council's appeal points as follows:


The facts relating to the issue of liability were not challenged. This included that the plaintiff had been provided by the Council with a chainsaw without a clutch on the day of the incident. Immediately after the plaintiff was injured, 2 other employees of the Council checked over the plaintiff's injuries and then showed him a chainsaw with a clutch attached saying that the incident "probably would not have happened if [the chainsaw] had this clutch".

The plaintiff's forensic engineer, Mr Colin Simpson, opined that it was almost universal practice to fit chainsaws with a clutch to limit the torque if the chainsaw struck a hard section of tree causing it to abruptly stop its rotary motion. Mr Simpson considered it was foreseeable that a chainsaw without a clutch could cause injury, although it did not offend any Australian standard or regulation.

The Council did not seriously dispute that it owed the plaintiff a non-delegable duty of care to avoid exposing him to unnecessary risks of injury, analogous to that of an employer.

Given the unchallenged evidence of Mr Simpson that the chainsaw itself normally comes with a clutch, the Court of Appeal found that even if an employer abides by workplace laws and industry standards and regulations, that of itself cannot necessarily negate any breach of the employer's duty of care where it has provided equipment which it knows or ought to have known is unsafe. The Court of Appeal therefore upheld the primary judge's finding with respect to breach of duty of care as no error had been demonstrated.


Evidence was presented at trial that APS neither attended the site nor required the Council to report back about work performed by the plaintiff. APS did not provide any training or instruction to the plaintiff in the use of machinery. When the plaintiff commenced work with the Council 8 days prior to the injury, his job description was to assist with weed spraying. Although the plaintiff submitted the APS had not breached its duty of care to the plaintiff as it could not have prevented the provision of defective or unsafe equipment on the morning of the accident, the primary judge found APS still owed a non-delegable duty of care to its employee. The primary judge assessed APS's negligence at 15%.

The Court of Appeal referred to the decision of Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel Pty Limited2 which found:

"The making of an apportionment as between a plaintiff and a defendant of their respective shares in the responsibility for the damage involves a comparison both of culpability, ie of the degree of departure from the standard of care of the reasonable man ... and of the relative importance of the acts of the parties in causing the damage."

The Court of Appeal noted each case is to be determined on its own facts and circumstances. Further, a finding on a question of apportionment is one which involves individual choice or discretion and should not be reviewed lightly.

The Court of Appeal found that the ultimate figure which the primary judge came to (15%) was not outside the bounds of a sound discretionary judgment. It noted there was a high degree of departure from the standard of care of a reasonable employer by the Council but a low degree of departure from that standard by APS. In particular, APS was not aware that the method of work had been changed to the use of a chainsaw on the morning of the incident. The Court of Appeal agreed the immediate and major cause of the plaintiff's injuries lay with the Council rather than APS. Accordingly, no error by the primary judge had been demonstrated.


Non-Economic Loss

The medical evidence indicated the plaintiff had fractured the base of his fourth metacarpal and strained a ligament in his wrist. The plaintiff was initially placed in plaster and then commenced physiotherapy. The plaintiff continued to experience constant pain and restriction of movement and underwent surgery to repair his ligament on 26 May 2010. The plaintiff was again placed in plaster and resumed physiotherapy. Following surgery, medical evidence suggested the plaintiff had ongoing stiffness and restriction of movement but no significant pain. It was thought the plaintiff would be able to resume suitable duties but with a lifting restriction of 2 to 5 kg and no jarring activity.

At the trial, the plaintiff submitted the severity of non-economic loss was 35% of a most extreme case while the Council submitted 20%. The primary judge assessed non-economic loss at 30% of a most extreme case.

On appeal, the Court was referred to the decision of Kurrie v Azouri3 which referred to a "most extreme case" as including injuries such as "quadriplegia ... some serious cases of paraplegia ... serious brain damage and perhaps extremely serious scarring and disfigurement ... in young children". In that case, a severe laceration to the lower leg with permanent scarring, decreased sensation and psychological effect was reduced from 29% to 18% of a most extreme case.

The Court also considered the decision of Owners – Strata Plan 156 v Gray4 in which a finding for non-economic loss was reduced from 33% to 20% for a significant ligamentous injury to the left ankle. The assessment was overturned as the Court considered:

"... 33 percent of a most extreme case was so unreasonable and plainly unjust that it must be inferred that in some way his Honour failed properly to exercise the discretion reposed in him in making the determination he did."

However, the Court of Appeal also noted that restraint should be exercised by an appellate Court before interfering with what is essentially a discretionary judgment, as per Dell v Dalton5. Rather, the compensation assessed must be so inadequate " to be beyond the limits of what a sound discretionary judgment could reasonably adopt", as per Miller v Jennings6.

In this particular case, the Court of Appeal noted that in assessing non-economic loss, the parties essentially relied on medical reports, the authors of whom were not cross-examined. The Court of Appeal found the primary judge's assessment of 30% for non-economic loss was manifestly excessive and reduced the award to 25% of a most extreme case. In this regard the Court of Appeal noted although the plaintiff suffered quite a serious injury to his right wrist, it improved to the point where he was generally pain free.

Past Economic Loss

Evidence given during the hearing established that whilst the plaintiff had worked fairly regularly during 2007, he took time off work in late 2007 to look after his sick father and then his mother. The plaintiff did little work between February 2008 and October 2008 due to a shortage of work at APS. The evidence established that from 1 January to 30 October 2008, the plaintiff earned $14,000 gross.

The primary judge in assessing past economic loss did not consider the plaintiff's 2008 earnings were an accurate reflection of his earning capacity. It was noted that 2008 was an unusual year for the plaintiff due to the Global Financial Crisis and having to look after his parents. Accordingly, the primary judge considered earnings for 2007 were a more accurate reflection and adopted the wages earnt in that year as the basis for assessing economic loss.

The Court of Appeal disagreed and thought a more accurate reflection of the plaintiff's earning capacity as at the date of the accident was the amount he was being paid by APS for his employment with the Council, namely $20.52 per hour gross. On the basis of a 38-hour week, this totalled $670 net per week which the Court considered was an appropriate figure to take as a starting point.

The Court of Appeal made no allowance for residual earning capacity which, based on the medical evidence, was thought to be more theoretical than real. The Court awarded the plaintiff $670 net per week to the date of trial but discounted this by 20% to take into account the possibility the plaintiff would have been unable to obtain full time employment with APS. Accordingly, the assessment of past economic loss was reduced from $92,357.01 to $71,861.52.

Future Economic Loss

The primary judge accepted the plaintiff would have worked to the age of 67 and would have struggled to achieve more than casual intermittent work. She calculated future economic loss on the basis of a 50% reduction in earning capacity. On appeal, the Council submitted that the plaintiff had a drive and attitude to retrain himself, was medically capable of returning to work (although required permanently modified duties) and was optimistic about his future economic prospects. Accordingly, it was submitted a cushion of $75,000 was more appropriate.

Although the Court of Appeal accepted that a loss of earning capacity of 50% was reasonable in the circumstances, the Court adjusted the earnings to $670 net per week as a starting point, based on the above findings in relation to past economic loss. Further, to take into account the possibility the plaintiff would have been faced with periods of unemployment as a labour hire worker, the Court of Appeal increased the discount for vicissitudes from 15% to 25%. Accordingly, damages for future economic loss were reduced from $236,988 to $217,994.55 including superannuation.

Domestic Assistance

The Council challenged the primary judge's finding that the pldomestic assistance but no error was found in the primary judge's assessment. Based on the above, the Council failed in its challenge with respect to liability, apportionment and gratuitous care but succeeded in respect to awards for non-economic loss, past economic loss and future economic loss. In the circumstances, the Court thought it appropriate there should be no order as to costs of the appeal as each party had had some success. The judgment was ultimately reduced from $536,880.47 to $414,aintiff was entitled to gratuitous 207.94 in total.


This decision is an example of the Court of Appeal overturning a primary judge's findings in relation to the assessment of damages where appropriate. Only assessments which the Court considered were outside the bounds of sound discretionary judgment were reviewed.

In particular, it is interesting the Court of Appeal was willing to find that the assessment for non-economic loss of 30% had a sufficient disparity with what the Court ultimately assessed as being reasonable (25%) that they agreed to interfere with the award.

This case provides support for assessing greater than 15% deduction for vicissitudes in circumstances where the plaintiff has an inconsistent work history.

It does not appear that either party made submissions in relation to future economic loss being calculated to 67 years of age, despite the traditional retirement age being recognised as 65 years, pursuant to the decision of Allianz Australia Limited v Roger Ward & Ors7.


1 Young JA; Sackville AJA; Tobias AJA
2 [1985] HCA 34
3 (1998) 28 MR 408
4 [2004] NSWCA 304
5 (1991) 23 NSWLR 528
6 (1954) 92 CLR 190
7 [2010] NSWSC 720

Ranked No 1 - Australia's fastest growing law firm' (Legal Partnership Survey, The Australian July 2010)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.