Covill v WorkCover Queensland [2022] QSC 171
Background
The Plaintiff, Ms Covill, was employed by Atlas People Pty Ltd as a chef. This role included an
expectation between Ms Covill and her employer, that Ms Covill would be offered temporary
assignments throughout different Australian states depending on her performance.
Upon assignment to a role in Daly Waters in the Northern Territory, Ms Covill injured herself.
Ms Covill was accepted for a workers’ compensation statutory claim. However, upon pursuing a
common law claim for damages for her incident, WorkCover submitted that Ms Covill was not entitled
to proceed with this claim, as her employment was not ‘connected with’ Queensland in accordance
with section 113 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (‘WCRA’).
Assessment of Quantum
In determining whether the Plaintiff’s employment was ‘connected with’ Queensland, the Court
analysed the Plaintiff’s employment contact, the nature and location of the subject employer, and the
general circumstances of the Plaintiff’s employment, with Justice Applegarth saying:
“… the contract was entered into in Queensland. The conditions of assignment confirmed the laws of
Queensland applied to the agreement. She was paid from (the employer’s) premises in Queensland,
kept in contact with (the employer) by telephone and email from Queensland and, perhaps most
importantly, instructions for her role given to her from Brisbane.”
The Court also found that expectations of an ongoing employment relationship and future work may
be relevant to determining a connection, saying:
“Expectations based on representations made by one party to the other may be relevant even if they
do not constitute a contractual term or a binding legal promise. Any pattern that emerges from the
worker’s work history with the employer is relevant. The likelihood or improbability that the employer
will offer the employee work in the future, along with the likelihood that the employee will accept such
an offer, may also be relevant in determining the relevant employment.”
Therefore, the Court determined that the question of connection in accordance with the WCRA
requires an analysis of the worker’s employment circumstances and surrounding context, rather than
the precise nature and content of the worker’s employment contract.
Takeaway
On this basis, the Court determined that just because an injury is sustained outside of Queensland,
does not mean the employment is not ‘connected with’ Queensland in accordance with the WCRA