Injured as a labour hire worker in Queensland: who is responsible?

Labour hire is ordinary in Queensland construction, manufacturing, transport and health. You sign on with an agency, it places you at another business, and from then on much of your working day is set by people who do not pay you: the induction, the plant, the supervisor, the system of work.

When someone is hurt in that arrangement, the first question asked is usually who you work for. The more useful question is which organisation is answerable for what, because Queensland law splits the roles: one body pays the no-fault statutory benefits, and a different body may carry the greater share of responsibility in negligence. They run on separate tracks, under separate legislation, with separate deadlines.

Who your employer is when you work through an agency

The starting definition is broad. An employer is a person who engages a worker to perform work: Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 30. A worker is, usually, someone who works under a contract and who is an employee for PAYG withholding purposes: s 11.

Left there, a placement would be ambiguous. Schedule 3 removes the ambiguity. Item 2 provides that if a labour hire agency arranges for a worker who is party to a contract with the agency to do work for someone else, the agency continues to be the worker’s employer while the worker does that work. Item 1 does the same where a business lends or lets on hire its worker’s services.

So the agency remains the employer for the placement. Its insurer decides the statutory claim: usually WorkCover Queensland, or the agency itself if it is a licensed self-insurer (s 275(2)). In the ordinary placement the host, however tightly it runs the site, is not your employer for this purpose.

The statutory claim, where fault is not the issue

The statutory claim is the no-fault layer: weekly payments while you cannot work, medical and rehabilitation costs, and in some cases a lump sum for permanent impairment. Nobody has to be shown to have done anything wrong.

What has to be established is an injury in the statutory sense: a personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment, where the employment was a significant contributing factor to it (s 32(1)). An aggravation of an existing injury, disease or medical condition qualifies on the same test, to the extent of the effects of the aggravation.

Timing matters more than most people expect. An application for compensation is valid and enforceable only if lodged within 6 months after the entitlement arises, and lodging more than 20 business days after that point limits how far back the insurer’s liability to pay runs (s 131). The insurer must waive the 6 month rule where satisfied that special circumstances of a medical nature, decided by a medical assessment tribunal, exist, and may waive it for reasons including mistake or reasonable cause. Our complete guide to WorkCover claims in Queensland works through that process.

Where the host business comes in

Not being your employer does not put the host outside the law. Two ideas do the work, and the first is the safety legislation. A person conducting a business or undertaking must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers it engages and of workers whose activities in carrying out work it influences or directs: Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) s 19(1). A host that directs a labour hire worker’s activities is inside that wording. More than one person can concurrently have the same duty, and each must discharge it to the extent of its capacity to influence and control the matter, whatever any contract between them says (s 16).

A contravention is not itself a claim. Nothing in that Act confers a right of action in civil proceedings for a contravention of it (s 267). The same facts can still matter: in Singleton, below, the Court found at [512] that the host had breached s 19 and at [514] that it was liable in negligence. Related findings, but distinct.

The second idea is the common law duty of care, and it decides these cases. In Singleton v Direct Personnel Services Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QSC 259, a labour hire worker was injured at the host’s workplace. The Court put the principle plainly at [491]: “The authorities provide that a host employer owes a duty to take reasonable care to a worker which is analogous to what the actual employer owes.” The employer’s own duty is non-delegable, so the agency cannot discharge it by handing the worker over to someone else.

Two claims, two rule books

Here is the part that catches people out. Even though they arise from one incident, the two claims are governed differently. The workers’ compensation legislation defines damages by reference to a liability in the worker’s employer (s 10(1)), so chapter 5 of that Act regulates the claim against the agency. A claim against a third party such as the host falls outside that definition and runs instead under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), which excludes work injuries only to the extent that chapter 5 regulates them (s 6(2)(c)). An example printed in that section makes the point: a claim against the employer follows the workers’ compensation procedures, a claim against anyone else follows this Act’s.

The substantive law differs too. The Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) is switched off, subject to the exceptions it names, for a work injury covered by the scheme, and s 5 carries a worked example built on a labour hire arrangement, in which that Act applies to none of the claims against the agency, the host or the machinery manufacturer. What fills the gap differs by defendant. In Singleton the Court assessed the host’s liability at common law, while saying at [515] that “in order to assess liability as against the first defendant”, the agency, “one must have regard to the following provisions”, then setting out the statutory breach and causation tests.

That gateway applies only to the claim against the employer, and its limbs are distinct. The ordinary route is a notice of assessment for the injury. Failing that, a worker holding an assessment for another injury from the same event may proceed where that assessed injury carries impairment of 20% or more, or the worker has elected under s 239 to seek damages. A terminal condition allows a worker to proceed without an assessment. Separately, where an assessment states impairment below 20% and offers a lump sum, the worker cannot take both, and the election cannot be changed. We deal with that decision in WorkCover versus common law: the 20% impairment decision.

What has to be proved

A duty owed is only the starting point. Against the agency, s 305B provides that a person does not breach a duty to take precautions against a risk of injury to a worker unless the risk was foreseeable, the risk was not insignificant, and a reasonable person in that position would have taken the precautions. Causation under s 305D has two parts: the breach must have been a necessary condition of the injury occurring, and it must be appropriate for the scope of liability to extend to the injury caused.

Against the host, the common law equivalents apply. The questions look much the same, but the statutory wording does not govern. Either way, showing a workplace was poorly run does not, without more, establish breach or causation.

When both the agency and the host are at fault

The two claims can succeed together. Where they do, responsibility is divided between the defendants rather than at the worker’s expense: a tortfeasor liable for damage may recover contribution from another tortfeasor liable for the same damage (Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld) s 6(c)), in whatever amount the court finds just and equitable having regard to the extent of that person’s responsibility (s 7).

How the division falls tends to track control. In Singleton, the Court reasoned at [542] that as against the agency, “it was the employer with the non-delegable duty”, while as against the host, “it controlled the workplace and had the system of work”. Judgment went against the agency, which recovered contribution from the host of 75 per cent. That was one case on its facts; the test is what the court finds just and equitable, not a fixed ratio.

The deadlines that run in the background

Three periods matter, and they differ. Earliest is the 6 month statutory application period already mentioned. Next, the general limitation period is 3 years from the date the cause of action arose: Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s 11. For the claim against the agency, a notice of claim must be given within that period, and the Act adds machinery for proceedings brought afterwards where a complying notice was given in time (s 302). It also requires a proceeding to be brought within 60 days after a compulsory conference.

For the claim against the host, part 1 of the notice of claim is due by the earlier of 9 months after the incident, or the first appearance of symptoms, and 1 month after a law practice is first instructed and the proposed respondent is identified (s 9(3)). That 1 month trigger surprises people, because it can arrive long before the 9 month date. Late notice is not automatically fatal, but it must be explained.

Published 5 August 2026.

Where this leaves an injured worker

The structure is more workable than it first appears. The agency stays the employer, so the statutory claim has a clear home. The host is not immune, because its duty comes from control rather than a contract of employment. What is left is procedural: two claims, two rule books and three clocks, running from an incident on a site where the paperwork belongs to somebody else. That is also why reporting an injury to both businesses, rather than only to whoever is nearest, matters: it puts a record in each system, and who directed the work goes to control.

Related reading

• WorkCover claims in Queensland: the complete guide
• The personal injury claim process in Queensland
• How Fraser Lawyers helps with WorkCover claims
• Contact Fraser Lawyers

This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Queensland law and the figures referred to can change, and every situation turns on its own facts. Contact Fraser Lawyers for advice specific to your circumstances.

If you would like to discuss your matter, you can book a consultation or call (07) 5554 6116.