A stable-hand suffered back injuries when the horse he was riding in fast track-work suddenly stumbled as it approached a tan-bark access crossing on a racecourse training track occupied by the V.R.C. The V.R.C. and the trainer who employed the stable-hand knew that the tan-bark crossing presented a significant risk of injury to riders using the track. The V.R.C. had not taken any steps to re-locate or re-surface the crossing, and the trainer had not sought to persuade the V.R.C. to remove or minimise the risk. The stable-hand resumed work after the accident but his back condition deteriorated following further exertions and he became incapacitated for work. He was paid compensation under s. 98 of the Accident Compensation Act 1985. He sued the trainer and the V.R.C. for damages. The V.R.C. joined the Victorian WorkCover Authority and an insurer as third parties alleging that the stable-hand was, pursuant to s. 16(4)(b) of the Accident Compensation Act, the V.R.C.’s deemed employee and that the V.R.C. was therefore entitled to be indemnified in respect of any liability it incurred to the stable-hand. The third parties separately sued the V.R.C. under s. 138 of the Act claiming that the plaintiff was at all material times the employee of the trainer and that the V.R.C. was a negligent third party and was therefore obliged to indemnify them for the compensation paid to the stable-hand pursuant to s. 98 of the Act.