RACQ Insurance Limited v Foster [2018] QCA 252

Further to my earlier post the Court of Appeal reviewed the authorities of Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2006] 1 Qd R 519; King v Parsons [2006] 2 Qd R 122 and Farnham v Pruden [2017] 1 Qd R 128 when considering the interaction of section 32 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act (WCRA) and the exception in section 5(1)(b) of the Civil Liability Act (CLA).

The necessity for the review was in light of the amendments in 2007. Formerly, section 5 of the CLA did not apply in relation to “any civil claim” if the injury was an injury defined under the WCRA, other than to which ss 34(1)(c) or 35 applied. Following the amendments section 5 of the CLA did not apply to “deciding liability or awards” for “an injury for which compensation is payable” under the WCRA, and other than an injury to which ss 34(1)(c) or 35 applies.

The Court of Appeal confirmed Newberry and King and as applied in Farnham [84]. The Court of Appeal emphasised that an injury occurring at work or in the course of work does not mean work is a significant contributing factor, it requires employment (significant contributing factor) to be the causal connection to the negligence.

David Cormack – Brisbane Barrister & Mediator

Related Posts

Recent Comments

    Categories