As all Melbournians know, the start of the AFL season signals that the year is well underway. Footy might permeate many aspects of Victorian life but it doesn’t usually affect interpretations of Occupational Health and Safety regulations.

Rooke v Australian Football League (No 2) [2025] VSC 748

Footy nerds and legal pundits alike have been keeping a close eye on the concussion group proceeding led by former Geelong Premiership Player Max Rooke against the AFL, his former club and its doctors. There have been a series of developments in the long running case, but this newest determination in the Supreme Court of Victoria is the most relevant to the workplace relations and safety sphere.

Justice Keogh has dismissed Rooke’s claims for now, relying on the jurisprudence surrounding the Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2017 (Regulations).

Rooke claimed that under the Regulations, the AFL and Geelong owed a duty to him and his co-applicants to reduce the risks from head knock injuries, including an obligation to ensure appropriate secondary care of concussions and other musculoskeletal injuries. Rooke specifically complained of permanent concussion-related injuries and a psychiatric condition.

The submissions dealt with hazardous manual handling, specifically the repetitive or sustained application of force, awkward posture, vibration and movement. The Regulations (Part 3.1) impose a duty on employers to, so far as is reasonably practicable, identify hazards, control risks and review risk control measures in relation to hazardous manual handling tasks.

If the claim had succeeded, employers covered by the manual handling provisions may in the future have been liable for not only failing to eliminate or reduce the risk of musculoskeletal injuries, so far as is reasonably practicable, but also for deficiencies in the systems they implemented to support and care for their workers after such injuries took place.

Rooke argued that the AFL and Geelong Football Club were responsible for managing the aftermath of head knocks sustained during play and/or eliminating, reducing or controlling the risk to players who had previously sustained a head knock, so far as is reasonably practicable.

Rooke submitted that the use of force to move or hold the ball and to push, hold or restrain live persons in a repeated way during matches and training caused the initial injuries. He alleged that the AFL and Geelong breached their duties by failing to (amongst other things):

• have a rigorous system for the identification of symptoms;
• withdraw players from matches or training where a concussion was identified for a minimum of 12 days;
• observe players continually once they are fit and able to return to play;
• assess whether a player who had suffered more than one concussion was ever capable of returning to play; and
• study, monitor, advise, warn and educate AFL players on the risks of head knocks.

Critically, Justice Keogh held that there is nothing in the Regulations to suggest that the duties imposed on employers in relation to musculoskeletal injuries arising from or associated with hazardous manual handling tasks extend to precautions directed to reducing consequences of such injuries.

Application to the Workplace

While the world of the AFL game has not generally been considered in the context of the Regulations and manual handling, at least not in the same way as the construction and manufacturing industries, the observations made by Justice Keogh can be directly related to these and other areas.

Justice Keogh found that employers will not be responsible for the ongoing care of employees after an initial musculoskeletal injury has been suffered in the course of hazardous manual handling.

He stated that:

“the purpose of the OHS regulations was to impose a duty on employers to take measures to eliminate, reduce or control the risk of injury occasioned by the stresses or forces involved in a manual handling task.”

While demonstrating care for an injured employee is certainly the gold standard in terms of improving outcomes for both employee and employer, the Court has found that employers covered by the manual handling provisions will not be on the hook under the Regulations for the continued management of previously injured employees.

However, employers must still be mindful of addressing the risks of hazardous manual handling as it relates to performance of particular tasks, their duration and frequency, and workplace environmental conditions.

Conclusion

While the findings and clarifications provided by Justice Keogh are useful beyond an AFL context, the decision does not mean that the matters agitated by Rooke and others will not be further considered by the Courts. Justice Keogh gave Rooke leave to replead his case, stating that he believed that “it may be possible to plead a statutory duty claim that has a real prospect of success“, meaning that the AFL’s (and other sporting codes’) concerns in relation to concussion group proceedings might not be over yet.

If you are concerned about your business’ compliance with the OHS Act or Regulations, please contact our Workplace Relations & Safety Team for assistance.

This article was written by Tony Lawrence, Partner, Nick Zavattiero, Solicitor, and Hannah Patience, Law Graduate