The findings under s 312(1)(b) (employer foreseeability) and s 312(1)(c) (worker knowledge) of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 are not inconsistent even where the employer and worker had access to the same information, because s 312(1)(b) concerns foreseeability of events including those not expected but foreseeable as possible, while s 312(1)(c) concerns the worker's knowledge of the risk in the circumstances immediately before the event. The employer's onus of proving discharge of obligations under s 28(1) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 by virtue of s 37 was confirmed as surviving Slivak v Lurgi. Section 315 of the 1996 Act does not exclude claims for gratuitous services provided by friends where the worker lives alone — attention must be directed to the worker's actual family or household arrangements at the time services were provided, not to a notional objective model.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.