Landmark South Australian decision offers comfort for community clubs
23 April 2026
A recent significant decision by the South Australian Employment Tribunal, Farrell v Mackay [2025] SAET 130 (Mackay), has provided comfort for community sporting clubs across South Australia. Had the decision been different, it had the potential to discourage the community clubs’ use of volunteers – both in South Australia and around the country.
In the Mackay decision, His Honour Deputy President Judge Calligeros was asked to determine if a 150-game veteran footballer was able to be prosecuted as a worker following an incident involving kitchen equipment at the local country Football Club.
His Honour determined that the Club involved in this case was not a ‘person conducting a business or undertaking’ (PCBU) within the meaning of s 5 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (WHS Act) and accordingly, the footballer could not be prosecuted as a worker.
The case
Mr Quinn Mackay is a senior country football player and a volunteer member of the Hummocks Watchman Eagles Football Club (the Club), which is part of the Adelaide Plains Football League.
On 15 September 2022, Mr Mackay in his capacity as a volunteer was mowing grass at the Port Wakefield oval. On the day, another volunteer asked Mr Mackay for his help in moving the club’s gas powered deep-fryer. Relevantly, Mr Mackay was a qualified gas fitter who held a restricted gas fitting registration. Mr Mackay assisted with moving the deep-fryer and in doing so, allegedly failed to cap the gas hose assembly after moving the equipment. Some weeks later, the deep-fryer was being used in its new location by people who had hired the Club premises when there was an explosion.
Mr Mackay was prosecuted by SafeWork SA, which argued the Club was ‘not a volunteer association within the meaning of the WHS Act because it employs persons, and did employ persons on 15 September 2022’. In making this argument, the regulator relied on the Club’s payments to the A-grade coach, trainer and some players, as well as two canteen managers and submitted these ‘had the character of payments made to employees’.
Evidence provided in support of Mr Mackay’s case highlighted that the contracts by which some of the players were engaged indicated that their involvement with the Club was a hobby or pastime and they do not rely on the payments made for regular personal income. In December 2025, Judge Calligeros dismissed the prosecution as the regulator had ‘failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Club was a PCBU’. Among his findings, Judge Calligeros held: ‘The contract between the Club and its players and coaches is not a contract of employment and there was no written contract of employment between any person and the Club … ’.
Sparke Helmore successfully acted for the respondent in this matter.
Valuable insights for community clubs
There are a number of insights that volunteer-run clubs can take from the decision:
- Understand whether your community club is a volunteer organisation or a PCBU.
- Be aware of the scope of your safety duty and who it may apply to.
- It is important to ensure that club volunteers are actually volunteers and not performing paid work outside the scope of being a volunteer.
While this decision upheld the voluntary nature of the specific association involved, it should not be interpreted as a blanket rule. Cases turn on their specific facts and circumstances, and it can be beneficial to seek advice from a safety law expert in such situations.
