Defining “Worker” Under The WCRA – Navigating The Overlap Between Partnerships, Directors, And Employees

This matter involved a workplace accident in which the plaintiff sustained severe injuries when a tractor fell on him while he was performing repairs to a tractor on a sugar cane farm.

The Supreme Court of Queensland held that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant and that WorkCover Queensland was liable to indemnify the defendant under its accident insurance policy in respect of its liability to the plaintiff. The Court awarded the plaintiff $1,299,113.33 in damages. WorkCover was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis.

In issue

• The Supreme Court of Queensland was required to determine whether the plaintiff was a worker within the meaning of section 11 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (WCRA) and whether the Third Party, WorkCover Queensland (WorkCover) was required to indemnify the defendant in respect of its liability to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s damages were also in dispute.

The background

On 15 August 2018, the plaintiff sustained severe injuries while he was performing repair works to a tractor on a sugar cane farm in North Queensland. During the plaintiff’s repair works, he moved underneath the tractor to gain better access. Whilst the plaintiff was underneath the tractor, Mr Sheedy, an employee of CRG Harvesting (the defendant), climbed into the tractor cabin. Due to Mr Sheedy’s movement, the tractor fell off a jack and safety stand, causing crush injuries to the plaintiff.

At the time of the incident, the plaintiff was working on the sugar cane farm under a business structure which was not uncommon in the intergenerational cane farming activities of North Queensland. The sugar cane farm was owned by a family trust which involved the plaintiff, his wife and family. The plaintiff was working on the farm for the purposes of the trust. The plaintiff was also a member of a partnership with his wife and brother, which owned farming equipment including the subject tractor. This equipment was often hired to the defendant.

The defendant carried on a harvesting contractor business which contracted to harvest cane on the farm owned and operated by the plaintiff’s family, as well as on other cane farms. The plaintiff’s brother directed the day-to-day operations of the defendant’s harvesting business, and assigned work to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages in respect of his injuries. He alleged that the defendant was his employer and that it was vicariously liable for the negligence of Mr Sheedy.

WorkCover declined to indemnify the defendant for the plaintiff’s claim. WorkCover argued that the plaintiff was not a worker pursuant to section 11 of WCRA and that it was not required to indemnify the defendant in respect of any damages it was found to pay the plaintiff. The defendant commenced Third Party proceedings against the Third Party, claiming that it was entitled to be indemnified for the plaintiff’s claim.

At trial, the defendant and WorkCover admitted that the defendant was vicariously liable for the negligence of Mr Sheedy, and that Mr Sheedy's negligent conduct caused or materially contributed to the plaintiff's injuries.

In dispute at trial was:

1. Whether, as at 15 August 2018, the plaintiff was a ‘worker’ of the defendant pursuant to the WCRA and accordingly, whether WorkCover was liable to indemnify the defendant in respect of its liability to the plaintiff.
2. The question of the plaintiff’s damages.

The decision at trial

The Court held that the plaintiff was a ‘worker’ pursuant to the WCRA and that the defendant was entitled to indemnity from WorkCover in respect of its liability to the plaintiff. On the question of whether the plaintiff was a ‘worker’, the Court found that:

1. The plaintiff worked on the farm as directed by his brother using machinery which was provided by the defendant. He was paid by the defendant by way of a weekly wage with tax withheld and superannuation contributions paid as required by law. The Court rejected the Third Party’s submission that the business arrangements were a sham.
2. The plaintiff was not a director of the defendant as contended by the Third Party. The plaintiff’s activities were directed by his brother and were limited to operating farming machinery during sugar cane planting and harvesting. The Court accepted evidence which was given by the defendant’s accountant that the plaintiff had signed company tax returns as a director due to an administrative error. The plaintiff had significant mental incapacities which demonstrated that he was incapable of making decisions or directing activities in the interests of the defendant company.
3. Although the tractor was owned by the family partnership, the maintenance which the plaintiff was performing on the tractor at the time his injuries were sustained was not performed as a partner in the partnership. The plaintiff was working on the tractor because Mr Sheedy had raised issues about the steering, and the repairs were necessary to enable Mr Sheedy to continue his work for the defendant. Evidence was given by the plaintiff’s wife and brother that the defendant was responsible for maintenance and repair of the tractor, and at the time of the incident, the defendant was the entity which was cutting the cane. Evidence which was given by the plaintiff under cross-examination that he was performing work on the tractor for the partnership was treated with scepticism due to his mental incapacities.

As to the question of damages, the plaintiff was 51 years of age at the time of the trial and sustained extensive injuries which included spinal and rib fractures, a collapsed lung and psychiatric conditions. The Court accepted that as a result of these injuries, the plaintiff’s ability to work and enjoy his life were significantly impaired.

The Court awarded judgment for plaintiff against the defendant in the amount of $1,299,113.33. WorkCover was held liable to indemnify the defendant for the judgment sum and the plaintiff’s costs. WorkCover was also ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the plaintiff’s claim and the Third Party proceedings on an indemnity basis.

Implications for you

This case underscores the importance of clearly establishing employment relationships and the need for accurate documentation and clarity in business arrangements in order to avoid disputes over employment status.

Germanotta v CRG Harvesting Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 329

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.