Workers’ Comp and CTP Claims Tips: Anderson v Claytons Towing Service [2026] QSC 26

Workers’ comp and CTP claims can arise from the same incident where a worker is injured during the course of employment in connection with the use of a motor vehicle. Anderson v Claytons Towing Service Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] QSC 26 is an important Queensland Supreme Court decision explaining when both statutory schemes apply and how damages are assessed.

In Anderson, an employee of a tow truck company was awarded $2.5 million in damages for chest injuries sustained as a result of poor safety policies of his employer and a driver negligently releasing the handbrake on a vehicle whilst he was underneath it. The employee successfully claimed under two legislative schemes: the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (WCRA) and the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) (MAIA).

Facts

On the 11 August 2019, Edward Van Der Veer was driving his Mitsubishi bus along the Burnett highway when he noticed a warning light and pulled over to the side of the road. Upon noticing oil leaking from the bus, Mr Van Der Veer contacted Clayton’s Towing Service Pty Ltd (Employer) to provide assistance. Clayton’s Towing sent their employee, Colin Anderson (Plaintiff), to tow the vehicle.

Upon arrival, the Plaintiff went underneath the vehicle to assess the damage and determined it would need to be towed. The Plaintiff communicated this to Mr Van Der Veer and specifically told him that the handbrake of the vehicle must remain on. Whilst he went underneath the vehicle again to attach the towing device the Plaintiff stated, “the brakes must stay on…my life depends on it”. Despite this, Mr Van Der Veer released the handbrake of the vehicle prior to the Plaintiff getting underneath the vehicle it.

While the Plaintiff was underneath the bus attaching the towing device, the bus rolled off two wooden blocks, colliding with him and causing significant internal injuries to his chest. The bus crushed the Plaintiff for roughly 20 seconds before Mr Van Der Veer was able to hand the Plaintiff’s remote control to lift the bus off of his body.

Immediately after the accident, Mr Van Der Veer stated to the Plaintiff, “I thought you wanted the handbrake released”.

The Plaintiff suffered significant internal crush injuries and ongoing sequalae, including:

• Serious chest injuries, comprising:
  • Multiple rib fractures
  • Intercostal nerve damage
  • Soft tissue damage to thoracolumbar spine
• Ongoing pain which required a spinal cord stimulator to control and pain medication
• Post-traumatic stress disorder

Workers’ Compensation Claim

The Employer admitted liability on the grounds that they had failed to have an appropriate safety system in place. The Employer admitted that a system requiring employees to both: chock the wheels of the vehicle; and apply the handbrake themselves; should have been implemented and that they did not have a system of adequate training in place to prevent incidents such as this. Both of these failures breached their duty of care to the Plaintiff. These breaches caused injury to the Plaintiff.

The Employer argued contributory negligence from the Plaintiff and sought contribution from Mr Van Der Veer to the extent of 25%. The Court rejected the Employer’s claim of contributory negligence, noting that the Plaintiff complied with the Employer’s system of work and that any failure on his part did not rise beyond mere inattention or inadvertence.

Motor Accident Claim

The Plaintiff argued against Mr Van Der Veer that under section 5(1) of the MAIA, his injuries were a result of the bus running out of control, caused by a wrongful act of Mr Van Der Veer.

Mr Van Der Veer denied liability on the basis that any injuries caused in connection with the bus were not the result of either the driving of the bus, or the bus running out of control and that any injuries were not caused wholly or partly by a wrongful act in respect of the bus by Mr Van Der Veer.  The latter was not accepted by the Court after it had been established that Mr Van Der Veer had released the handbrake of the bus.

Liability for injury arising from collision with a motor vehicle must result from the use of the vehicle as a motor vehicle, not in the course of mere repair or servicing. A vehicle is considered to be ‘running out of control’ if it is running (moving) when there is not a person in a position to steer the movement or prevent the movement by applying the brakes. Given that Mr Van Der Veer had released the handbrake, the bus was running out of control and the Plaintiff’s injuries were claimable under the MAIA.

The Transport Accident Commission (TAC) was liable to indemnify Mr Van Der Veer, as the compulsory third party (CTP) insurer.

This decision provides important guidance for parties with workers’ comp and CTP Claims in Queensland.

Liability

The decision illustrates how workers’ comp and CTP claims may proceed simultaneously against different defendants.

The Employer and the Plaintiff argued that both themselves and Mr Van Der Veer were equally culpable for the incident, at a 50/50 apportionment. Mr Van Der Veer argued that the Employer was significantly more culpable for the Plaintiff’s injury, and that the Employer’s defective system of work was the principal cause of the injury.

The Employer had a defective system of work, and Mr Van der Veer failed to follow clear directions given by the Plaintiff. One of these breaches without the other, would not have caused injury to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court found that the Employer and Mr Van Der Veer were equally as culpable as each other.

Assessment of Damages under different schemes

One of the most significant aspects of workers’ comp and CTP claims is that damages may be assessed under different statutory regimes. Damages payable by the Employer were assessed under the WCRA, and damages payable by the TAC were assessed “at large” (under common law_. Amounts for past economic loss, past superannuation, past special damages and Fox v Wood damages were agreed by the Plaintiff, Employer and the TAC.

General Damages

General damages payable by the Employer were assessed under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2025 (Qld) (WCRR). The Plaintiff’s general damages under the WCRR were assessed at $101,500.00.

General damages payable by the TAC were assessed at common law. The Court assessed the damages at common law as $110,000.00. Interest on general damage was calculated at 2% for 6.56 years, for a total of $7,216.00.

Future Economic loss

The Plaintiff was unable to continue working and had no residual earning capacity. His future economic loss damages were reduced on the basis that he was likely to have retired early in any event, due in part, to the fact that he enjoyed a close relationship with his wife who is 13 years his senior, and his work prevented them from spending time together as it required him to work away from home for extended periods. Therefore, it is likely that the Plaintiff would have retired at age 65, rather than 67, so as to spend more time with his wife. His future economic loss was determined to be $320,000.00.

Future Care

The Plaintiff was determined to require 15 hours of care a week due to his injuries for the usual life expectancy of 85 years. Future care was calculated at a commercial rate as utilised by the NDIS, resulting in $684,585.00 payable by the TAC.

No future care expenses were payable by the employer.

Past Care

Past care and assistance payable by the TAC were assessed with regard to expert reports and evidence of the Plaintiff regarding care and assistance provided by his wife following his injury. Past care and assistance were calculated at the rate of $45 per hour, totalling $295,453.13. Interest at a rate of 4% from the date of injury to date of judgment was allowed totalling $77,526.90.

Due to the apportionment of liability, the employer was ordered to pay 50% of the damages assessed: $546,175.09

The TAC was to pay the total damages minus the sum paid by the employer: $1,970,874.41.

Key takeaways for Workers’ Comp and CTP claims

This decision highlights the importance of considering both workers’ comp and CTP claims whenever a workplace injury also involves the use of a motor vehicle.

The Plaintiff’s injuries arose from two (2) concurrent causes.  The Employer’s defective system of work exposed the Plaintiff to the risk of injury, while Mr Van Der Veer’s negligent release of the handbrake caused the bus to roll and crush him.  Those separate breaches gave rise to claims under both the WCRA and the MAIA.

The case demonstrates several practical advantages of pursuing both claims where the facts permit:

• A plaintiff may recover damages assessed under different legislative regimes. Damages against the Employer remained subject to the WCRA, including the statutory assessment of general damages.  In contrast, damages against the CTP insurer were assessed at common law, allowing recovery for significant heads of damage unavailable in his claim under the WCRA, including past and future care. Additionally, MAIA claims provide plaintiffs with broader entitlements to recover legal costs.
• A successful MAIA claim may substantially increase overall damages where the circumstances involve the negligent use of a motor vehicle.
• Practitioners should not assume that a vehicle which is not being operated and is not under motion, is excluded from the MAIA. A vehicle may still be “running out of control” where it is moving without anyone in a position to control or stop it.
• The existence of a defective system of work does not necessarily make the Employer solely responsible. Where another party’s negligence also contributes to the injury, liability may be apportioned between defendants.  Consideration should also be given to the scope of the policies of interstate insurers, compared with those licensed insurers under the MAIA.
• Plaintiffs should carefully investigate all potential defendants at an early stage. Had the Plaintiff pursued only one claim and failed to establish liability, he may have been left without relief.

The decision also serves as a reminder that employers undertaking vehicle recovery or roadside assistance work should implement robust safety systems.

Read the decision of Anderson v Claytons Towing Service Pty Ltd & Ors here.  If you require advice about workers’ comp and CTP claims, contact Denning Insurance Law.