Have any questions? Call us: 
Christopher Reynolds routinely set out from his home in Edenhope in Victoria at around 3:00 pm to make his way 40 km across the border into South Australia to the trucking depot at Hynam.
Reynolds was employed by Qube Logistics who kept a depot there opposite the sprawling Teys Australia meat works.
He had joined Qube in April 2019 under a written contract that nominated the Hynam depot as his base. He’d done his driver assessment and induction there, received instructions and lodged issues there, and started and finished shifts there.After collecting run sheets and instructions, checking over the truck and easing the prime mover across the road to Teys to hook up trailers loaded with cow hides, he would set off for the long haul to Laverton in Melbourne’s west.
The return trip usually had him back at the Hynam depot by 4am so the day shift driver could motor the rig on the exact same dash to Melbourne.
It was when he dismounted from the cab at the end of his run in August 2020, that he slipped, fell, and suffered injury.
His injury claim against Qube reached the Supreme Court of Victoria on the determination of a separate question of which state was the driver’s employment “connected” to, notwithstanding he had already had claims accepted and compensation paid under Victoria’s scheme.
The dispute came before Justice Jacinta Forbes who observed that identical “cascading” tests applied in in both states to determine that “connection”.
Each law asks first: in which state did the worker usually work? If that yields no single state, the next question is where the worker was usually based; if that still yields no single state, the fallback is the employer’s principal place of business, and failing that, the state where the injury occurred.
The cascade is intended to produce a single, nationally consistent answer even for workers who cross borders as part of their everyday employment.
Reynolds contended his work across state borders was most connected with Victoria because he spent the lion’s share of his driving time on its roads—about 84% by his reckoning—and both he and Qube expected that to continue.
He also argued his loads ran not just to to Laverton but to other Victorian locations, and that Victorian WorkCover had accepted his statutory claim.
Qube though asserted, that because he worked in both states, no single state answered the first limb of the test.
And in answer to the second question, he was clearly “usually based” in Hynam: the contract named it; instructions originated there; issues were reported there; shifts started and ended there; and the truck lived there.
If needed, they added, Qube’s principal place of business and even the injury location would also point to South Australia.
The court agreed.
“Usually works” is not decided by tallying hours as such arithmetic might point to two states at once and would undermine the very purpose of a uniform cascade test that aims to yield a single connection.
Because tasks were performed in both states, resort had to be had to the second limb of the test: where was he “usually based.”
Justice Forbes also agreed that Hynam was the operational centre; was stated as his “base” in his contract; and was the start and return point for each shift.
That was enough to fix the employment connection to South Australia.
That conclusion meant there was no compensation entitlement in Victoria or under the Victorian scheme.
Because Reynolds had not satisfied South Australia’s damages claim preconditions – he had not undergone a permanent impairment assessment or made a compensation claim under the S.A. scheme—the action against Qube could not proceed under South Australian law and had to be dismissed.
Teys Meatworks – who was joined as a second defendant – was also off the hook as a result of Qube’s win but might still be able to be separately pursued by Reynolds as a non-employer tortfeasor under S.A. law.
Reynolds v Qube Logistics (SA1) Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 88 Forbes J, 13 March 2026
Categories: Logistics worker injury , truck accident