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”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions