Judge in worker injury case finds employment connected to SA, not Victoria
In a proceeding seeking damages for work injury, the Victorian Supreme Court found the employer liable for the costs of its late application to amend the defence based on the employment’s connection with South Australia rather than Victoria.
The employee – the plaintiff in Reynolds v Qube Logistics (SA1) Pty Ltd & Anor (Costs) [2026] VSC 220 – sustained injury in South Australia while working as an interstate truck driver between South Australia and Victoria. He claimed damages against his employer, the first defendant in this case.
The lawyer acting for the Victorian Workcover Authority made inquiries regarding whether the employer perceived the employee as a “Victorian worker.” The employer’s advisors conducted the proceeding on the basis that the relevant employment had a connection to Victoria.
The employee received ongoing workers’ compensation payments under Victorian legislation, obtained a serious injury certificate, and timely initiated his proceeding.
In its defence, the employer admitted that the employee could commence the proceeding under division two, part seven of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic).
The second defendant then alerted the employer to a possible issue regarding the choice of laws and a potential error in the Authority’s approach.
On the eve of the matter’s listing for trial, the employer applied for leave to amend the defence. It questioned the choice of laws applicable to the damages claim. The Victorian Supreme Court confirmed that the employment had a connection with South Australia, not Victoria.
The parties agreed that the Victorian Supreme Court should dismiss the employee’s proceeding against his employer, which was not in line with the procedural requirements under South Australian legislation, and the contribution proceeding between the defendants, without resolving the merits.
However, the parties disputed the appropriate cost orders.
The Supreme Court of Victoria ordered the employer to pay the standard costs of the proceeding, including the costs of its applications and the costs thrown away because of the vacation of the trial date.
The Supreme Court found the employee and the second defendant entitled to their costs of the applications.
The Supreme Court noted that the employer:
The Supreme Court did not find the employee liable for the litigation costs. The court explained that the employee pursued his proceeding in the belief that he had complied with the necessary conditions to do so and incurred preparation costs until the eve of trial.
The Victorian Supreme Court noted that the Authority:
