The contract, the payslips, and the workers comp policy all pointed in one direction
A NSW Supreme Court ruling has determined who truly employed a labour hire worker, with separate damages assessments made against two insurers totalling over $465,000, though the plaintiff must elect which verdict to enforce.
On 26 February 2026, Acting Justice Elkaim handed down judgment in Tazleem v Certain Underwriters at Lloyds [2026] NSWSC 124, centred on identifying who actually employed an injured diesel mechanic.
Sheik Abdul Tazleem arrived from Fiji on a student visa in January 2018. He posted his resume on Seek and Indeed, was contacted by Better Truck Repairs Pty Ltd (BTR), interviewed by principal Joe Sultana, and started on 31 January 2018 at $25 per hour for up to 20 hours weekly.
On 9 February 2018, Sultana asked Tazleem to repair a heavy excavator bucket weighing over a tonne. Unable to remove it from the forklift tines, Tazleem tried reaching Sultana without success. The floor manager could not help either. He enlisted an apprentice, and while they worked, the bucket suddenly detached. Tazleem was knocked unconscious and airlifted to Westmead Hospital with neck, elbow and scalp injuries.
What Tazleem did not know was that his actual employer was JP Business Consulting Pty Ltd (JPBC), a labour hire company contracted to supply workers to BTR. JPBC paid his wages from the outset, and he only learned of its existence in early 2019 through his solicitor.
By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, BTR was in liquidation and JPBC had been deregistered, leaving insurers to defend the claims. BTR's public liability insurer argued Tazleem was a BTR employee, which would have triggered a policy exclusion and removed coverage. It pointed to BTR recruiting Tazleem directly, setting his pay and hours, and providing a BTR uniform.
The court rejected this. The labour hire contract stated: "The parties agree that JP Business Consulting Pty Ltd employees are at all times employees of JP Business Consulting Pty Ltd and not employees of the Better Truck Repairs Pty Ltd." JPBC's workers compensation insurer had already accepted the claim and paid over $400,000 in workers compensation expenses.
Acting Justice Elkaim observed that "it is not uncommon in a labour hire scenario for a company where the worker is placed to dictate his or her working tasks and conditions or even to require him or her to wear a uniform."
Both BTR and JPBC conceded breach of their duty of care, with BTR's insurer doing so only in the event its insurance argument failed. Tazleem's own responsibility for pressing on reduced his damages by 15% against BTR's insurer and 10% against JPBC's, reflecting the higher duty employers owe compared to occupiers.
Surveillance evidence also played a role. Footage showed Tazleem performing physical tasks that contradicted his claimed disabilities. The court found his evidence unreliable without independent corroboration, and his claim for past care was abandoned.
The court found Tazleem's lower back condition was not caused by the accident in his claim against BTR's insurer. However, JPBC's insurer was estopped from denying the condition by a prior Complying Agreement under section 66A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) that accepted a 16% whole person impairment inclusive of the lower back, creating different liability outcomes for each defendant.
Damages against BTR's insurer were assessed at $236,319.74 after deducting 15% for contributory negligence and a $50,000 policy excess specifically applying to labour hire personnel. Damages against JPBC's insurer were assessed at $228,694.82 after a 10% reduction. Liability was apportioned 80% to BTR and 20% to JPBC. The court's preliminary view on costs was that both defendants should pay Tazleem's legal costs, with parties given leave to make submissions if different orders were sought.
The court directed the parties to provide final orders in accordance with its reasons, noting the figures remain subject to adjustment for Fox v Wood damages and past medical expenses.
This ruling clarifies that employment status in labour hire turns on who pays wages, who holds workers compensation insurance, and what the contract specifies. Recruitment, task supervision and uniform requirements did not establish BTR as the employer.
