Avon Products Pty Ltd v Falls

Avon Products Pty Ltd appealed to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory against a determination by the Magistrates Court concerning the "State or Territory of connection" for a workers compensation claim brought by Ms Falls. The central dispute revolved around whether the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) or New South Wales (NSW) was the relevant jurisdiction for Ms Falls' employment in relation to her workers compensation claim.

The primary legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Magistrates Court had correctly applied the tests set out in section 36B(3) of the *Workers Compensation Act 1951* (ACT) to determine the "State or Territory of connection". Specifically, the court had to consider whether Ms Falls "usually worked" in the ACT, whether she was "usually based" for the purposes of her employment in the ACT, and if neither of those applied, how the "State or Territory of connection" should be identified.

The Supreme Court reasoned that the location where a worker is required to perform their duties does not solely determine where they "usually work". It found that Ms Falls usually worked in both the ACT and NSW, and importantly, had no "usual base" for her employment. Consequently, the court determined that the "State or Territory of connection" should be identified by the location of the employer's principal place of business. Applying this principle, the Supreme Court concluded that NSW was the State of connection for Ms Falls' employment.

Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted, and the appeal was allowed. The orders of the Supreme Court and the Magistrates Court were set aside. In substitution, the Supreme Court ordered that New South Wales was the State of connection for Ms Falls' employment with Avon Products Pty Ltd for the purposes of her workers compensation claim. There were no orders as to the costs of the appeal or the prior proceedings in the Supreme Court.