CARUSO v EWART [2012 WADC 181]
The issue in this case was whether Mr Ewart was a
"worker" within the meaning of the Workers
Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981, WA.
Although turning on its facts, it addresses all of the features
of the frequently litigated question of "employee or
sub-contractor" as well as the broader question of whether or
not the claimant is a "worker".
Ewart claimed compensation following a fall from a ladder and
argued that he was employed under a contract of service by Caruso.
His work was that of a painter handyman. He had a business name
that he had used before and the evidence pointed to a sub-contract
rather than an employment contract. However, it was also clear that
his pay was probably "in substance for his personal manual
labour or services", in which case, even if found to have been
engaged under a contract for services, he may nevertheless be a
"worker" and therefore entitled to compensation.
