Case Note: Foord v Workers’ Compensation Regulator
Citation: [2025] QIRC 27
Jurisdiction: Queensland Industrial Relations Commission
Date: 30 January 2025
Decision Maker: Member McLennan IC
Background
On 16 May 2023, Mr Fludder suffered fatal injuries while performing work on a farming property owned by Mr and Mrs Shea. His fiancée, Ms Foord, lodged a compensation claim with WorkCover Queensland. The claim was rejected on the basis that Mr Fludder was not considered a “worker” under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (“WCRA”). This decision was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator, prompting a de novo hearing before the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”).
Facts
- On 10 May 2023, Mrs Shea posted on Facebook offering use of their property for caravan parking, with water and electricity, in exchange for 10 hours of work per week.
- Ms Foord responded and accepted the offer. She and Mr Fludder arrived at the property shortly thereafter.
- On 16 May 2023, Mr Fludder was electrocuted while repairing a leaking water pipe.
Legal Issues
- Existence of a Contract
The Commission examined whether a contract existed between Mr Fludder and the Sheas. Applying principles of contract law—offer, acceptance, consideration, intent to create legal relations, and certainty of terms—the Commission found:
- The Facebook post constituted an offer.
- Ms Foord’s response, signed with both her and Mr Fludder’s names, constituted acceptance.
- Consideration was present in the form of work exchanged for accommodation and utilities.
- The parties’ conduct indicated an intention to create legal relations.
- The terms were sufficiently certain, with an understanding of 10 hours of work per week.
- Definition of “Worker” under the WCRA
Under section 11(2) and Schedule 2, Part 1, section 3 of the WCRA, a contractor may be considered a worker if:
- They contract to perform work not incident to a regularly carried out trade or business.
- They do not sublet the contract.
- They perform part of the work themselves.
The Commission found:
- Mr Fludder had entered into a contract to perform work.
- He did not sublet the contract.
- He performed part of the work himself.
- The Regulator’s earlier interpretation requiring a regular trade or business was withdrawn as incorrect.
- Causal Connection Between Work and Death
The Commission considered whether the task Mr Fludder was performing at the time of his death arose out of or in the course of his employment, and whether employment was a significant contributing factor.
- The water pipe was part of the existing infrastructure, not newly installed for personal convenience.
- Although no direct evidence of instruction from Mr Shea was available, the Commission inferred that the task was performed under the work arrangement.
- The death was found to have occurred in the course of employment.
Decision
The Commission held that Mr Fludder met the definition of a “worker” under the WCRA and that his death occurred in the course of his employment. Accordingly, Ms Foord’s application for compensation was accepted.
Commentary
This decision reinforces the beneficial nature of the WCRA and the importance of interpreting its provisions in favour of workers. It also highlights the legal recognition of informal work arrangements, particularly those involving exchange of labour for accommodation and utilities.