What a painter's back injury reveals about contractor classification risk
A painter, an ABN, and a back injury. A Victorian court examines what an employer owes a worker, regardless of how the engagement is documented.
The case of Nouroozi v Jaggers Corporation Pty Ltd, heard in the County Court of Victoria, involved Mohamad Nouroozi, a painter who worked for Jaggers Corporation Pty Ltd from December 2016 to March 2018. Jaggers required its painters to hold an Australian Business Number (ABN) and invoice for their work. On paper, they were contractors. In practice, the arrangement looked a lot like employment.
On 13 March 2018, Nouroozi was roller-painting a wall at a residential site in Tarneit when he bent over to reach the lower section and could not stand back up. He was taken by ambulance to Footscray Hospital, where he says he was diagnosed with a back spasm and discharged. His general practitioner later referred him for a CT scan, which on 26 March 2018 revealed a significantly large L4/5 disc protrusion causing considerable compression of the thecal sac. He also alleged that he suffered depression and anxiety as a consequence of his physical injury, though the court ultimately did not accept that his current psychiatric condition arose from the workplace injury, finding that his mental health deterioration was more closely linked to unrelated life stressors.
He sued Jaggers for negligence, arguing the company failed to provide a safe system of work, safe equipment, and proper supervision. He said he was required to lift heavy paint tins, move tiles and building materials, and install heavy doors without assistance. He also brought a separate claim alleging breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2017, including failure to identify manual handling hazards and take adequate steps to control them.
Notably, the worker status question was not in dispute. Both parties accepted, without contest, that notwithstanding the ABN and invoicing arrangement, "there was no dispute in this proceeding that Mr Nouroozi was a 'worker' within the definition of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013." The label of "contractor" offered Jaggers no legal protection from its obligations under workplace injury legislation.
The evidence also surfaced several workplace culture concerns familiar to HR professionals. Nouroozi and a fellow former worker testified that raising complaints with their manager, Darek, risked dismissal. One former worker, Mr Hashimi, recalled Darek's stance being: "this is what it is. If you want, you can work. If you don't want, you can go home." Workers who asked for pay rises or superannuation were reportedly let go. Nouroozi also alleged that Darek took advantage of him and colleagues because they were new to Australia and did not speak English well. He further alleged that superannuation deducted from his wages was not paid into his account, though the court noted some contributions were made. The court found these matters were not causally linked to his physical injury and were not determinative in the negligence proceedings.
On both the negligence and statutory breach claims, the court found in Jaggers' favour. Nouroozi, who represented himself throughout the trial, could not demonstrate that an alternative system of work would have prevented the injury, nor could he establish that any regulatory breach caused it. The court was clear: "the fact that Mr Nouroozi was injured undertaking that task was an unfortunate accident." His claim was dismissed on 1 April 2026.
The case puts several issues in focus. An ABN arrangement does not automatically make someone a contractor, and as this case illustrates, the point may not even be contested when a worker is injured. The legal obligations that flow from that status, including under workplace injury legislation, remain regardless of how the arrangement is documented. A workplace culture where workers cannot raise concerns without fear of losing work carries real WHS exposure. And where workers have limited English or are newly arrived in Australia, the adequacy of safety communication and training is a question worth examining.
