Hays Specialist Recruitment (Australia) Pty Ltd v Carey-Schofield; Civeo Pty Ltd v Carey-Schofield

[2025] QCA 161 · Bond and Brown JJA and Vaughan AJA

In plain language

Aaron Carey-Schofield was a casual labour-hire worker emptying rubbish bins at a mining accommodation village in Dysart in February 2019. While dragging a heavy rubbish bag, he was startled by a wasp, stepped backwards, tripped on a bag left on the ground and fell heavily onto his left elbow, suffering a serious fracture that required surgery and left him with lasting impairment. He sued both his labour-hire employer (Hays) and the host company (Civeo), and the trial judge entered judgment in his favour for over $873,000 against Civeo and around $503,000 against Hays. Both companies appealed, arguing they were denied a fair trial, that the judge's factual findings about how the accident happened were wrong, and that the damages for future loss of earning capacity were too high. They also disputed a costs order. The Court of Appeal rejected every argument and dismissed both appeals, so Mr Carey-Schofield kept his award.

Incident & injury

Plaintiff, while emptying wheelie bins of rubbish, was startled by a wasp, stepped backwards, tripped on a rubbish bag left on the ground and fell onto his left elbow

Body regions
Elbow, Left elbow, Psychiatric (Left)
Diagnoses
Comminuted intra-articular fracture of the left distal humerus with displacement, Post-traumatic degenerative change of left elbow, Post-surgical scarring, Psychiatric impairment secondary to physical injury
Incident date
24 February 2019
Location
Civeo accommodation village, Dysart, Queensland

Quick facts

Date of judgment
2 September 2025
Proceeding
Appeal
Plaintiff outcome
Successful
Occupation
Facilities - stores/grounds worker (casual labour hire) at accommodation village Labourer
Liability
Disputed
ISV assessed
20 · Item 101 (serious elbow injury) – WCRR Sch 9
Whole Person Impairment
8%
Total damages
$873,014

Outcome

Both appeals by Hays and Civeo against the trial judgment in favour of the plaintiff were dismissed. The Court of Appeal held there was no denial of procedural fairness, the primary judge's factual findings and risk-of-harm formulation were sound, the future economic loss awards were within range, and s 316 of the WCRA did not preclude the costs order against Civeo. The plaintiff retained his trial recovery (judgment of $873,014.08 against Civeo).

Defendants (2)

1 Civeo Pty Ltd

Host employer / Occupier

Judgment against this defendant
$873,014
Heads of damage
Future loss of economic capacity $250,000
Future superannuation $29,450

2 Hays Specialist Recruitment (Australia) Pty Ltd

Labour-hire employer

Judgment against this defendant
$503,596
Heads of damage
Future loss of economic capacity $250,000
Future superannuation $29,450

Key issues

📑 Cite this case (AGLC4)

Hays Specialist Recruitment (Australia) Pty Ltd v Carey-Schofield; Civeo Pty Ltd v Carey-Schofield [2025] QCA 161

When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.

← Back to the case archive