Comcare v PVYW

Case [2012] FCAFC 181

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Comcare v PVYW [2012] FCAFC 181

Citation: Comcare v PVYW [2012] FCAFC 181
Appeal from: PVYW v Comcare (No 2) [2012] FCA 395
Parties: COMCARE v PVYW
File number: NSD 656 of 2012
Judges: KEANE CJ, BUCHANAN AND BROMBERG JJ
Date of judgment: 13 December 2012
Catchwords: WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – application of the principles established in Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Limited – whether injuries were sustained in the course of employment – employee injured during an overnight stay in a motel room booked by her employer – injuries were sustained in an interval or interlude within an overall period or episode of work – whether it is sufficient that the injuries were sustained by the employee at a place the employer induced or encouraged her to be
Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
Cases cited: Comcare v Mather (1995) 56 FCR 456
Comcare v McCallum (1994) 49 FCR 199
The Commonwealth v Oliver (1962) 107 CLR 353
Danvers v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1969) 122 CLR 529
Dew v Maher (1996) 14 NSWCCR 56; [1996] NSWCA 154
Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Limited (1992) 173 CLR 473
Inverell Shire Council v Lewis (1992) 8 NSWCCR 562
State of New South Wales v Lepore (2003) 212 CLR 511
Workcover Authority of New South Wales v Walling (1998) 16 NSWCCR 527; [1998] NSWSC 315
Workcover Authority of New South Wales v Walsh [2004] NSWCA 186
Date of hearing: 28 November 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 57
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr T Howe QC with Mr A Berger
Solicitor for the Appellant: Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr L T Grey with Mr J P Mrsic
Solicitor for the Respondent: Pappas, J. – Attorney

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 656 of 2012
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

COMCARE
Appellant
AND:

PVYW
Respondent

JUDGES:

KEANE CJ, BUCHANAN AND BROMBERG JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

13 DECEMBER 2012

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 656 of 2012
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

COMCARE
Appellant
AND:

PVYW
Respondent

JUDGES:

KEANE CJ, BUCHANAN AND BROMBERG JJ

DATE:

13 DECEMBER 2012

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. The phrase “arising out of, or in the course of, employment” is well-known in workers’ compensation jurisprudence.  It states a traditional criterion for liability to pay compensation for an injury to an employee.  In Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Limited (1992) 173 CLR 473 (“Hatzimanolis”) the High Court explicitly reformulated and restated “the principles which determine whether an injury occurring between periods of actual work is within the course of the employment so that their application…

Continue reading Comcare v PVYW

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Comcare v PVYW [2012] FCAFC 181
Case
[2012] FCAFC 181
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Comcare appealed against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which held that an employee, PVYW, was entitled to workers’ compensation for injuries she sustained while staying in a motel booked by her employer, Comcare. The Tribunal had determined that the injuries were sustained in the course of employment, despite occurring during an interval within an overall period of work. Comcare argued that the injuries did not occur in the course of employment because they did not happen during an activity authorised by the employer.

The central legal issue was whether the principles established in Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Limited applied to the circumstances of this case. Specifically, the court had to determine if it was sufficient that the injuries were sustained by the employee at a place the employer induced or encouraged her to be, or whether the injuries must have been sustained during an authorised activity. The court considered the nature of the work, the control the employer had over the employee’s activities, and the relationship between the activities during which the injuries were sustained and the overall employment.

The court found that the principles in Hatzimanolis applied and that it was sufficient for the injuries to have been sustained at a place the employer induced or encouraged the employee to be, even if the injuries occurred during an interval within an overall period of work. The court held that the employee’s stay at the motel was an authorised activity, and the injuries occurred at a place the employer induced her to be. Therefore, the injuries were sustained in the course of employment. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.