Australia: Building site accident – Was plaintiff an employee or deemed worker? – Causation

Curwoods Case Note
Last Updated: 18 April 2012
Article by Iain Miller

Judgment date: 12 April 2012

Minogue v Rudd [2012] NSWSC

Supreme Court1

In Brief

  • To prove causation a plaintiff needs to establish that the alleged cause was more probable than any other.
  • Breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 (NSW) (the Act) and Occupational Health and Safety Regulation (2001) (the Regulations) do not give rise to a private cause of action.
  • Where an employer is able to control and co-ordinate the method of work, the duty owed to the plaintiff, whether he was an employee or an independent contractor, is substantially the same. Namely, a duty to take reasonable care to avoid exposing him to the risk of injury.
  • Res ipsa loquitur will not apply in circumstances where "what occurred and why" are matters of speculation.


Mr Minogue (plaintiff) was an Irish national and qualified carpenter who suffered a significant brain Injury when he fell from the ground floor to the basement in the kitchen area at residential premises under construction (premises).

The first defendant, David Jonathan Rudd t/as Rudd & Co Constructions (Rudd), contracted with the property owner (Mrs Rigby) to carry out renovations to the premises. Mr Tilden (Tilden), the second defendant, was also retained as a draftsman, clerk of works and was nominated as a supervisor in the agreement between Mrs Rigby and Rudd.

Rudd commenced work at the premises on 4 August 2003. The kitchen flooring was not completed since one of the joists did not have a 'noggin' (a beam that provides lateral stability to the joists) and was not properly fixed in place. Rudd's evidence was that the completion of the floor awaited a final decision as to the position of the stairs and location of an air-conditioning unit. The floor was likely left in this state since at least 5 January 2004.

On about 6 February 2004, Rudd went on a skiing holiday in Canada. In his absence, Tilden arranged for DMW Carpentry Services Pty Limited (DMW), the third defendant, to construct Page 2 of 4 an exterior chimney to the premises. This work involved constructing the chimney frame to the outside of the premises, and then fixing blueboards to the structure. The plaintiff was an employee/deemed worker of DMW and was supervised by Mr McWilliams (McWilliams), the Director of DMW.

Adamson J accepted Rudd's evidence that he arranged for hazard tape to be put up to bar the entrance to the kitchen area prior to him leaving for holiday, and that it was in position when McWilliams left the premises on the morning of the plaintiff's accident in view of the corroborative evidence of an electrician, Mr Hardwick, and Mrs Rigby who made a file note of their attendance on 12 February 2004.

On Monday, 9 February 2004, Tilden gave McWilliams drawings that indicated the dimensions of the chimney and where it was to be constructed. Tilden showed him around the outside of the site and took him into the entrance on the southern side of the house to show him the stairs that led from the ground floor to the first floor, which could be used to carry the sheets of blue board up to the first floor in order to construct the chimney at that level.

It was accepted by the parties that there was no reason for the plaintiff to enter the kitchen area to complete his work. Adamson J accepted that McWilliams left the site at approximately 9.00 am on 12 February 2004 to drop some materials to North Sydney, leaving the plaintiff to work without supervision.

A landscaper, Mr Bielik, was working at the site that morning and heard a scream and a crash of timber. He attended the plaintiff whom he discovered lying on the floor of the basement with considerable injuries. McWilliams attended the scene shortly afterwards.

It was accepted by the Court that the plaintiff fell from the ground floor to the basement of the premises. There were no witnesses to the fall and the plaintiff had no recollection of how it happened or why he was in the kitchen area.

The plaintiff sued Rudd, Tilden and DMW.


The plaintiff's counsel alleged that, whilst the plaintiff was walking across the kitchen floor joists, the incomplete and unstable joist moved under his foot causing him to loose his balance and fall down to the cement floor of the basement.

Adamson J accepted the consensus of the experts that neither the probable cause, the probable mechanics of the fall, nor where the plaintiff was probably standing when he fell could be determined.

In these circumstances, her Honour did not consider the hypothesis that the plaintiff lost his balance on a loose joist to be more probable than other possibilities (such as slipping, tripping or fainting etc) and therefore concluded that the plaintiff had failed to prove his case as it was pleaded.

In this respect her Honour followed the decision of Lithgow City Council v Jackson 2 , finding:

"I consider it to be a matter of speculation as to why the plaintiff fell. He may have slipped, tripped, fainted or simply missed his footing. I do not consider the hypothesis that he lost his balance on a loose joist to be more probable than other possibilities. I do not consider that the evidence as to the cause or mechanics of the fall to rise above the level of conjecture."

Statutory Breaches

Adamson J, noting that the matter was conducted on a broader basis than the above, examined the allegations of statutory breaches by the defendants.

The plaintiff alleged various breaches of the Act and the Regulations and sought to argue that these breaches gave rise to a private cause of action. In particular, the plaintiff relied on breaches of a number of the Regulations which, it was argued, obliged Rudd to eliminate the risk of the plaintiff falling by, amongst other things, putting down floorboards over the exposed kitchen joists.

French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Bell JJ had already determined in Leighton Contractors Pty Limited v Fox 3 (Leighton) that "the terms of [the Act] prevent the duties imposed by it on employers and others giving rise to correlative private rights".

Accordingly, the plaintiff's counsel sought to distinguish this matter from Leighton on the grounds that neither Leighton nor the Act made reference to whether a breach of the Regulations would give rise to a private cause of action (see in particular s 32 of the Act).

Ultimately, Adamson J, following the decision in Leighton, concluded that although breaches of the Regulations were relevant to the question of negligence, any breach would not necessarily amount to negligence, since the duty and standard of care was moderated by the standard of reasonableness (that is, "they do not impose a more stringent or onerous burden" 4 ).

Employment Issue

During the course of the proceedings, the plaintiff put, as an alternative, that he was an employee of DMW. Rudd put this as his primary submission in his cross-claim against DMW.

The duty and standard of care owed by DMW to the plaintiff depended in part on whether the plaintiff was an employee of DMW or a subcontractor.

Adamson J weighed up the following factors in determining the plaintiff's employment status:

  1. the plaintiff was paid at an hourly rate of about $28.50 and his wages were paid by DMW into the plaintiff's personal bank account without tax having been deducted;
  2. the plaintiff registered a business name, "A1 Carpentry", and obtained an ABN when he arrived in Australia. Had he not already done so, DMW would have required him to do so;
  3. the plaintiff worked exclusively for DMW from the time of his arrival in Australia;
  4. the work the plaintiff performed allowed DMW to fulfil his contractual responsibilities to third parties;
  5. the plaintiff did not obtain any work on his own account; it was DMW that obtained the jobs;
  6. the plaintiff worked a 40-hour week, and was not paid for any extra time worked;
  7. the plaintiff supplied his own minor tools. Other tools, such as power tools, including angle grinders, drills and skill saws, sawhorses and trestles, were supplied by DMW;
  8. DMW controlled the work that would be done by the plaintiff, when it would be done and where it would be done. In effect, DMW supervised the plaintiff; and
  9. the plaintiff wore DMW's uniform.

Adamson J noted the extent to which McWilliams controlled the plaintiff is relevant but not determinative, since the whole of the relationship must be considered: Hollis v Vabu Pty Limited 5 . Her Honour found that McWilliams controlled the work that would be done by the plaintiff, when it would be done, where it would be done and also supervised the plaintiff.

Having regard to the above, her Honour found that the plaintiff was employed by DMW. However, her Honour noted that, even if she was incorrect and the plaintiff was an independent contractor, the duty may well be substantially the same as described in Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Company Pty Limited 6 , excerpted as follows:

"... if an entrepreneur engages independent contractors to do work which might as readily by done by employees in circumstances where there is a risk to them of injury arising from the nature of the work and where there is a need for him to give directions as to when and where the work is to be done and to co-ordinate the various activities, he has an obligation to prescribe a safe system of work ..."

Adamson J concluded there was a need for McWilliams to give directions to the plaintiff and co-ordinate his work with the plaintiff's own, and that McWilliams had the ability not only to prescribe a safe system, but also to direct the plaintiff to comply with it. Her Honour considered that irrespective of whether the plaintiff was an employee or independent contractor the duty owed to him by McWilliams was no different to that which would have been owed had he been an employee, namely a duty to take reasonable care to avoid exposing him to the risk of injury: Rockdale Beef Pty Limited v Carey 7.


This matter highlights the importance of adducing evidence to establish the relied upon version of events above other possibilities. Ultimately, in this matter, the plaintiff was unable to convince the judge that his version of events was more probable than any other that may have occurred and it was for this reason that he failed against all three defendants.

In respect of DMW, this decision confirms that, in circumstances where an employer controls the manner of the work to be performed by employees and sub-contractors, the employer will be held to the same standard of care to ensure a safe system of work is formulated and adhered to irrespective of whether the injured party is an employee or a subcontractor.

In circumstances where a plaintiff is able to establish a breach of duty of care, the threshold question is whether the breach was causative of the plaintiff's injuries.

This matter also confirms the High Court's decision in Leighton that breaches of the Act may be indicative of negligence, but do not confer a private cause of action based on breach of statutory duty. In addition, her Honour confirmed earlier NSW Court of Appeal decisions that this principle applies equally to breaches of the Regulations (see for example, Elphick v Westfield Shopping Centre Management Company Pty Ltd 8).


1 Adamson J
2 [2011] HCA 36
3 [2009] HCA 35
4 as per Gummow J in Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v Dederer [2007] 234 CLR 330 at 345
5 [2001] HCA 44; 207 CLR 21
6 [1986] HCA 1 at 31
7 [2003] NSWCA 132 at 94
8 [2011] NSWCA 356M

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)
Related Video
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.