McGrath v Ezy Projects Pty Ltd [2026] QDC 121
McGrath v Ezy Projects Pty Ltd [2026] QDC 121 concerned a workplace injury suffered by an assessor and estimator who fell from a ladder while inspecting hail damage.
The District Court of Queensland found the employer negligent for failing to provide appropriate ladder equipment and rejected an allegation of contributory negligence against the worker. The decision also considered the worker’s residual earning capacity and assessment of damages.
What happened?
Mr McGrath worked as an assessor and estimator in the building insurance industry. His duties included attending properties and inspecting damage.
Following a significant hailstorm, there was increased demand for roof inspections. The work-issued ladder ordinarily available to Mr McGrath was being used by another employee.
Mr McGrath raised the need for appropriate ladder equipment, including a ladder-stabilising device known as a “ladder mate”. In the meantime, he was asked to use his own ladder.
While inspecting hail damage at a residential property, Mr McGrath used his personal stepladder to access the roof. He fell while descending and suffered serious orthopaedic injuries. He subsequently experienced ongoing pain and psychiatric symptoms.
Why was the employer negligent?
The Court found that the employer had failed to provide an appropriate ladder or ladder-stabilising device.
The precautions required were relatively straightforward and inexpensive compared with the potentially serious consequences of a fall from height. The Court accepted that a suitable ladder-stabilising device would have prevented the accident.
The employer was therefore found to have breached its duty to provide a safe system of work, and that breach caused Mr McGrath’s injuries.
Was the worker contributorily negligent?
The employer argued that Mr McGrath should bear some responsibility for the accident because he was an experienced worker who understood ladder safety and could have taken additional precautions himself.
The Court rejected that argument.
Although Mr McGrath’s assessment that he could safely perform the task proved incorrect, the Court characterised his conduct as a misjudgment rather than a disregard for his own safety.
The decision illustrates the importance of considering alleged contributory negligence in the context of the employer’s responsibility to establish and maintain a safe system of work.
Residual earning capacity
The Court also considered whether Mr McGrath retained an ability to earn income despite his injuries.
Although there was evidence of some theoretical capacity for alternative work, the Court considered the practical effect of his ongoing pain, medication, and unpredictable incapacity.
On the evidence, the Court accepted that he had lost his earning capacity. It nevertheless accounted for pre-existing hip degeneration when assessing his future economic loss.
The outcome
The Court assessed Mr McGrath’s total damages at approximately $1.378 million. After allowing for the refund payable to WorkCover Queensland, judgment was entered for $636,664.04.
The Court also ordered indemnity costs under s 312 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).
Key takeaways
The decision highlights that:
- An experienced employee’s knowledge of workplace risks does not necessarily relieve an employer of its obligation to provide appropriate safety equipment and a safe system of work.
- An error of judgment by a worker does not automatically amount to contributory negligence.
- Residual earning capacity is assessed practically, rather than simply by identifying work that a person may theoretically be medically capable of performing.
The information on this page is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice.