In this episode of P.I. Case Note, Michelle Wright examines the Queensland Supreme Court’s decision in Singleton v Direct Personnel Services Pty Ltd & anor (No.2) [2025] QSC 302, which provides important guidance on recovering legal costs from multiple defendants when pursuing both a labour hire employer and host employer to trial. The case follows Episode 63’s primary judgment where Mr. Singleton obtained judgments of approximately $430,000 against Direct Personnel and $490,000 against Mineral Technologies—with this costs decision determining that Mineral Technologies must pay Mr. Singleton’s costs of pursuing both defendants (not just the host employer) on the district court scale, including the costs of two counsel, despite his credibility issues reducing his damages.
The Court’s practical analysis reveals the strategic considerations for recovering legal costs from multiple defendants in workers’ compensation claims. Mr Singleton and Direct Personnel had made a mandatory final offer of $500,000 to Mineral Technologies with Direct Personnel contributing $110,000, meaning Mineral Technologies would pay $390,000 if accepted—but Mineral Technologies offered nil to both parties. Mr Singleton beat his mandatory final offer by a slim margin of under $10,000. The key costs issues were: whether costs should be on the Supreme Court or district court scale; whether two counsel were necessary; and whether Mineral Technologies should pay Mr Singleton’s costs of pursuing Direct Personnel given he could have theoretically accepted Direct Personnel’s $110,000 offer and proceeded against Mineral Technologies alone. On the first issue, the Court applied Rule 697 of the UCPR ordering district court scale costs because the judgment fell within that court’s jurisdiction, declining to exercise discretion to depart from this rule despite Mr Singleton’s failure to disclose his international travel. On the second issue, the Court found two counsel appropriate given the volume of material, witness complexity, and the fact that Mineral Technologies itself had two counsel. Most significantly on the third issue, the Court accepted that the WCRA does not preclude ordering a host employer to pay the plaintiff’s costs of pursuing the employer defendant, finding that by reason of Mineral Technologies’ denial of liability and nil offer, Mr Singleton was put to the onus and expense of pursuing both defendants to judgment, and that accepting Direct Personnel’s offer while proceeding against only Mineral Technologies “would be fraught with danger.”
Listen for Michelle Wright’s final analysis in the “30 episodes in 30 days” marathon on recovering legal costs from multiple defendants and the mandatory final offer strategy. If you’re pursuing a workplace injury claim against both a labour hire employer and host employer, the experienced team at accident legal understands the strategic importance of recovering legal costs from multiple defendants. As Queensland’s trusted personal injury lawyers, we know that when a host employer denies liability and offers nil, you shouldn’t be forced to choose between defendants or bear the costs of pursuing both—courts will order the denying defendant to pay your costs of pursuing all liable parties when their unreasonable position necessitates it. Contact us for a free consultation on (07) 3740 0200—we’ll develop mandatory final offer strategies that protect your costs recovery rights while maximising your compensation from all responsible parties.