Translock Industries Pty Ltd v GIO Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd [2006] NSWSC 177

Translock Industries Pty Ltd v GIO Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd [2006] NSWSC 177

On the balance of probabilities, the conversation of 28 September 2000 operated to terminate the second defendant's employment with e-Motion and constitute his employment by the plaintiff for the Weighmate project. The second defendant was employed by the plaintiff at the time of the accident on 20 November 2000.

Parties
Plaintiff: Translock Industries Pty Ltd; First Defendant: GIO Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd; Second Defendant: Alan Peter Cook
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
The second defendant was in the employ of the plaintiff when injured.
Legal Topics
Who Is a Worker or Employee, Termination of Employment, Employment Contract, Lending of Worker's Services, Privity Between Lender and Borrower
Workers' Compensation Employment Law Who Is a Worker or Employee Termination of Employment Employment Contract Lending of Worker's Services Privity Between Lender and Borrower

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Translock Industries Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

GIO Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd

First Defendant

Alan Peter Cook

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Alan Peter Cook was employed by Translock Industries Pty Ltd on 20 November 2000
  2. 2 Whether GIO Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd is estopped from denying that Alan Peter Cook was employed by Translock Industries Pty Ltd

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, the conversation of 28 September 2000 operated to terminate the second defendant's employment with e-Motion and constitute his employment by the plaintiff for the Weighmate project. The second defendant was employed by the plaintiff at the time of the accident on 20 November 2000.

Court Disposition

The second defendant was in the employ of the plaintiff when injured.