Commonwealth of Australia v Lyon

[1979] FCA 28

JUDGMENT No. ........ ........ .. 28 77 / ........ ...

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

1

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )	No. G30 of 1978
GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN : THE COkIMONTVE ALTH OF

AUSTRALIA

Appellant

AND : THOMAS HENRY LYON

Respondent

JUDGE MAKING ORDER	:	Deane J.
DATE OF ORDER:	23 March, 1979
WHERE MADE:	Sydney

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.  The decision of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Tribunal be affirmed.

2.  The Appellant Commonwealth pay the respondent's costs of this appeal.

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	) )
NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY	) No. G23 o f 1978
GENERAL DIVISION	1

BETWEEN : THE COklkIONWEALTH OF

AUSTRALIA

A p p e l l a n t

AND : THOMAS HENRY LYON

Respondent

CORAM: Deane J.

F r i d a y 2 3 March, 1979.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The q u e s t i o n o f l a w i n v o l v e d i n t h i s a p p e a l is a

d i f f i c u l t one . I have , however, come t o a f i r m c o n c l u s i o n

i n r e l a t i o n t o i t . I n v iew o f t h e t i m e which h a s e l a p s e d

s i n c e t h e r e s p o n d e n t s u s t a i n e d t h e i n j u r y t o which t h e a p p e a l

r e l a t e s , I p r o p o s e t o g i v e judgment f o r t h w i t h . I n a d o p t i n g

t h i s c o u r s e I a m c o n s c i o u s t h a t .I w i l l do less t h a n j u s t i c e

t o t h e h e l p f u l s u b m i s s i o n s o f c o u n s e l f o r b o t h p a r t i e s .

The a p p e l l a n t , t h e Commonwealth o f A u s t r a l i a , a p p e a l s j

a d e c i s i o n o f a Commonwealth Employees' Compensation T r i b u n a l ( A

J.O. B a l l a r d ) under t h e Compensation (Commonwealth Government

Employees) A c t 1971 ( " t h e Ac t" ) . By i ts d e c i s i o n , t h e T r i b u n a l ,

on r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a d e l e g a t e o f t h e

Commissioner f o r Employees' Compensat ion, d e t e r m i n e d t h a t cer tai

i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d by t h e r e s p o n d e n t Thomas Henry Lyon were

s u s t a i n e d by him i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s employment by t h e Comon-

w e a l t h and t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t w a s e n t i t l e d t o compensat ion f o r

t o t a l i n c a p a c i t y p u r s u a n t t o s . 4 5 of t h e A c t f o r a s p e c i f i e d

p e r i o d and t o m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s p u r s u a n t t o s . 3 7 of t h e A c t .

The a p p e a l t o t h i s Cour t is p u r s u a n t t o s . 9 5 of t h e A c t a n d ,

by t h e t e r m s o f t h a t s e c t i o n , i s l i m i t e d t o a q u e s t i o n o f l a w .

The r e s p o n d e n t w a s , on 15 September , 1976, a c l e r k i n

t h e Bureau o f Customs which c o n s t i t u t e s p a r t o f t h e Department

of B u s i n e s s and Consumer A f f a i r s . On t h a t day , h e s u f f e r e d a

f r a c t u r e o f h i s r i g h t thumb w h i l e p l a y i n g f o o t b a l l i n t h e

Sydney Domain i n a team drawn from employees o f t h e Bureau of

Customs. I t is common ground between t h e p a r t i e s t h a t , i f t h e

i n j u r y which t h e r e s p o n d e n t s u f f e r e d a r o s e o u t o f o r i n t h e

c o u r s e of t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s employment by t h e Bureau of Customs,

he was e n t i t l e d t o t h e compensat ion and t h e e x p e n s e s awarded

t o him by t h e T r i b u n a l by r e a s o n o f t h e combined o p e r a t i o n of

s s . 2 7 , 4 5 and 37 of t h e A c t . The i s s u e between t h e p a r t i e s

b e f o r e t h e d e l e g a t e and , on r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h e T r i b u n a l was

whether t h e i n j u r y arose o u t o f ar i n t h e c o u r s e of s u c h

employment. The i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , o f n e c e s s i t y , f a l l s

i n t o a na r rower compass.

A s h a s been s a i d , t h e a p p e l l a n t is r e s t r i c t e d i n i ts

a p p e a l t o t h i s Cour t t o a q u e s t i o n o f l a w . The T r i b u n a l

a c c e p t e d , a s t h e tes t of whether t h e i n j u r y s u s t a i n e d by t h e

r e s p o n d e n t w a s s u s t a i n e d i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s employment, t h e

q u e s t i o n f o r m u l a t e d by Dixon J . i n Humphrey E a r l L i m i t e d v .

Speech ley ( ( 1 9 5 1 ) 84 C.L.R. 126 a t p . 1 3 3 ) namely, whe the r t h e

r e s p o n d e n t " w a s d o i n g something which h e was r e a s o n a b l y r e q u i r e d

e x p e c t e d o r a u t h o r i z e d t o do i n o r d e r t o c a r r y o u t h i s d u t i e s " .

I t was n o t a r g u e d , on b e h a l f o f t h e a p p e l l a n t , t h a t t h e T r i b u n a l

was i n e r r o r i n a c c e p t i n g t h a t q u e s t i o n as a p p r o p r i a t e , i n t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e p r e s e n t na t ter , t o d e t e r m i n e whe the r t h e

a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d i n t h e c o u r s e of t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s employment.

The T r i b u n a l found t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t , when p l a y i n g f o o t b a l l

a t t h e t i m e he s u s t a i n e d h i s i n j u r y , w a s d o i n g someth ing which

he was r e a s o n a b l y a u t h o r i z e d t o do i n o r d e r t o c a r r y o u t h i s

d u t i e s . T h a t f i n d i n g w a s a f i n d i n g o f f a c t (Davidson v . Elould

(1943) 44 S.R. (N.S.17.) 113 a t p . 115; a n d , on a p p e a l (1944)

6 9 C.L.R. 96 a t pp . 110, 112; Commonwealth v . O l i v e r (1962)

107 C.L.R. 353 a t p . 358) . The q u e s t i o n f o r m e on t h i s a p p e a l

is n o t w h e t h e r , i n my o p i n i o n , t h a t f i n d i n g w a s t h e c o r r e c t o r

p r e f e r a b l e one . The q u e s t i o n f o r m e on t h i s a p p e a l is whe the r

t h e r e was a p r o p e r f o u n d a t i o n i n t h e e v i d e n c e f o r it ( s e e

Davidson v . Mould, (1943) 44 S .R. ( N . S . W . ) 1 1 3 a t p . 115 ; The

Department of H e a l t h v . Clancy (1961) W.C.R.	(N.S.W.)	233 a t p .
235) .

The team i n which t h e r e s p o n d e n t p l a y e d w a s , w i t h t h e

knowledge and a p p r o v a l o f t h o s e i n a u t h o r i t y i n t h e Bureau o f

Customs, known a s t h e "Customs Team". I t was, a s h a s been

ment ioned, made up s o l e l y o f p l a y e r s drawn from t h e Bureau.

The Bureau gave s i g n i f i c a n t s u p p o r t and a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e team.

O r g a n i s a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e team and its a c t i v i t i e s w a s

performed d u r i n g working h o u r s and t h r o u g h Bureau f a c i l i t i e s

i n c l u d i n g t h e u s e o f t e l e p h o n e s and t h e u s e o f accommodation

f o r m e e t i n g s . There was e v i d e n c e t h a t it w a s t h e w e l l - e s t a b l i s l

p r a c t i c e i n t h e Bureau t h a t when p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e game

i n v o l v e d a team member i n b e i n g a b s e n t from d u t y f o r more t h a n

t h e p e r i o d o f h i s l u n c h t i m e , he would comple te h i s a t t e n d a n c e

r e c o r d on t h e b a s i s t h a t he had resumed d u t i e s a t t h e e x p i r a t i o r

of h i s l u n c h t i m e p e r i o d and would n o t s u b s e q u e n t l y b e r e q u i r e d

t o make up t i m e i n r e s p e c t o f t h e a d d i t i o n a l p e r i o d i n which

p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e game n e c e s s i t a t e d h i s a b s e n c e from h i s

o r d i n a r y	d u t i e s .
The game i n which t h e r e s p o n d e n t w a s i n j u r e d was t h e

g r a n d f i n a l o f a c o m p e t i t i o n r e s t r i c t e d t o teams drawn from t h e

v a r i o u s Commonwealth Depar tments and v a r i o u s S t a t e ( N . S . w . )

Depar tments and I n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s . A t , i t would seem, a b o u t

noon on t h e day o f t h e game, t h e team g a t h e r e d on p r e m i s e s o f

t h e Bureau. The r e s p o n d e n t , w i t h o t h e r team members, changed

- i n t o f o o t b a l l g e a r i n one o f t h e B u r e a u ' s ameni ty rooms. The

team w a s t r a n s f e r r e d from t h e B u r e a u ' s p r e m i s e s t o t h e Sydney

Domain i n a d e p a r t m e n t a l b u s . The C o l l e c t o r o f Cusfoms f o r

N e w S o u t h Wales a t t e n d e d t h e match and wished " t h e Customs Team"

good l u c k b e f o r e t h e game commenced. The members o f t h e team

- which d u r i n g won - w e r e p e r m i t t e d t o a b s e n t t h e m s e l v e s from work

t h e a f t e r n o o n f o l l o w i n g t h e l u n c h t i m e game t o c e l e b r a t e

t h e i r s u c c e s s . The o f f i c i a l Bureau P u b l i c a t i o n c a l l e d "Contac t t1

s u b s e q u e n t l y r e f e r r e d t o t h e game i n a n a r t i c l e headed "Rugby

League V i c t o r y " o f which t h e f i rs t p a r a g r a p h r e a d s :

"For t h e s e v e n t h t ime i n e i g h t years , Customs Greens

d i s p l a y e d t h e i r dominance o f t h e F i r s t D i v i s i o n

P u b l i c S e r v i c e Rugby League c o m p e t i t i o n i n Sydney

when t h e y took o u t t h e Grand Fina l l a s t month f f .

A t t h e r e l e v a n t t i m e , a s y s t e m o f f l e x i b l e h o u r s

o p e r a t e d w i t h i n t h e Bureau of Customs. The r e s p o n d e n t s i g n e d

h i s a t t e n d a n c e r e c o r d f o r t h e day o f t h e match i n a manner

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he was t a k i n g t h e p e r i o d a f t e r 2 p.m. as " f l e x i

t i m e " . The T r i b u n a l f o u n d , as a f a c t , t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t d i d

n o t need t o do t h i s and t h a t t h e p l a y e r s i n t h e game had been

t o l d t h a t t h e y c o u l d t a k e t h e a f t e r n o o n o f f a f t e r t h e game. The

e v i d e n c e made it c l e a r t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e o f p e r m i t t i n g t h e

members o f t h e team t o a b s e n t t h e m s e l v e s from o r d i n a r y d u t y

d u r i n g t h e a f t e r n o o n o f a g r a n d f i n a l game was w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d .

I n t h e argument b e f o r e m e , t h e a p p e l l a n t p l a c e d

c o n s i d e r a b l e r e l i a n c e on t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t had

i n d i c a t e d , on h i s a t t e n d a n c e s h e e t , t h a t h e was e l e c t i n g t o t r e a

the a f t e r n o o n s e t a s i d e f o r a n t i c i p a t e d " c e l e b r a t i o n " a s " f l e x i

t i m e " . The T r i b u n a l p l a i n l y d i d n o t see t h i s f a c t as o f c r i t i c a

impor tance i n t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e matter. I n my view, it

w a s p l a i n l y open t o t h e T r i b u n a l t o a d o p t t h a t approach . A f t e r

t h e p r e v i o u s c o m p e t i t i o n games i n which t h e r e s p o n d e n t had

p l a y e d , he had a p p a r e n t l y r e t u r n e d t o h i s o r d i n a r y d u t i e s . The

T r i b u n a l f o u n d , a s a f a c t , t h a t t h e r e w a s no need f o r t h e

r e s p o n d e n t t o have e l e c t e d t o t r e a t t h e a f t e r n o o n a s " f l e x i

t i m e " f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t , t h e members of t h e team had o f f i c i a l

p e r m i s s i o n , w h i l e r emain ing on d u t y , " t o t a k e t h e a f t e r n o o n o f f

a f t e r t h e game". I t was p l a i n l y open t o t h e T r i b u n a l t o r e g a r d

t h e a b s e n c e of t h e members of t h e team from t h e i r o r d i n a r y

d u t i e s d u r i n g t h e a f t e r n o o n of t h e game a s b e i n g more i m p o r t a n t

i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e c o n n e c t i o n between t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s employ-

ment and h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e game t h a n i n c o n s t i t u t i n g

a b r e a k i n t h e c o u r s e of t h a t enployment .

The q u e s t i o n f o r m u l a t e d by Dixon J. i n Humphrey E a r l

L i m i t e d v . Speech ley (_supra) which t h e T r i b u n a l a p p l i e d as t h e

a p p r o p l - i a t e - t e s t h a s been a p p l i e d by c o u r t s on innumerab le

o c c a s i o n s s i n c e i ts f o r m u l a t i o n and h a s been r e c o g n i z e d and

a c c e p t e d i n a number of s u b s e q u e n t cases i n t h e High C o u r t o f

A u s t r a l i a (-see, f o r example, The Commonwealth v . O l i v e r , s u p r a ,

,

a t p . 363; B i l l Wi l l i ams P t y . L i m i t e d v . Wi l l i ams (1972) 126

C.L.R. 1 4 6 a t p . 1 5 9 and Danvers v . Commissioner f o r Ra i lways

(N .S .B . ) (1969) 122 C.L.R. 529 a t p . 5 3 6 ) . Tha t t e s t i s p l a i n l j

a most " c o u r s e u s e f u l a i d as a c r i t e r i o n o f i n c l u s i o n i n t h e c o n c e p t o f

of employment" ( . i . e . i f t h e tes t is s a t i s f i e d , t h e

r e s p o n d e n t was d o i n g something i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s employment) .

I f , however, t h e tes t is t o b e u s e d as a c r i t e r i o n of e x c l u s i o n

( i . e . i f t h e t e s t is not s a t i s f i e d t h e r e s p o n d e n t was not

d o i n g something i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s employment) it i s , i n my

r e s p e c t f u l v iew, n e c e s s a r y t o p l a c e a gloss on t h e words " i n

o r d e r t o c a r r y o u t h i s d u t i e s " which c o n c l u d e t h e q u e s t i o n

f o r m u l a t e d by Dixon J . s o t h a t t h a t p r ima f a c i e i n t r a c t a b i l i t y

may b e tempered t o a c c o r d w i t h t h e c u r r e n t v iews o f what comes

w i t h i n t h e s c o p e of employment which a r e more l i b e r a l t h a n those

p r e v a l e n t a t t h e t i m e Dixon J . f o r m u l a t e d it ( s e e p e r Dixon J .

The Commonwealth'v. O l i v e r , s u p r a , a t p . 3 5 8 ) . Any such g l o s s

t e n d s t o r e i n t r o d u c e g e n e r a l c o n c e p t s s u c h a s what s h o u l d be

a c c e p t e d a s r e a s o n a b l y i n c i d e n t a l t o employment ( s e e , f o r exampl

t h e d i s s e n t i n g judgment o f Roper C . J . , i n E q u i t y i n Muldoon v .

P i c k e r i n g (1955) W.C.R. ( N . S . W . ) 4 0 a t p . 4 6 which was mentionec

w i t h a p p r o v a l by Dixon C . J . , i n Commonwealth v . O l i v e r , s u p r a ,

a t p . 358) . I t was as a tes t o f i n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e T r i b u n a l

a p p l i e d t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f Dixon J . P l a i n l y , it was e n t i t l e d

s o t o a p p l y i t . T h a t test s h o u l d however, even when used a s

a c r i t e r i o n o f i n c l u s i o n , b e s e e n as a n a i d i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n

o f tlie s u b s t i t u t e e i t h e r f o r t h e words words u s e d i n s . 2 7 o f t h e A c t and n o t as an e x c l u s i v e

of t h e s e c t i o n or t h e a s s i s t a n c c

which i s t o b e o b t a i n e d a s t o t h e i r s c o p e and o p e r a t i o n from

o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s . The e s s e n t i a l q u e s t i o n r e m a i n s whether t h e

r e l e v a n t i n j u r y a r o s e i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e employment.

I n j u r y i n t h e c o u r s e o f employment means a n i n j u r y

s u s t a i n e d w h i l e t h e worker is engaged i n t h e work which he is

employed t o do o r i n something which is a concomi tan t o f , o r

r e a s o n a b l y i n c i d e n t a l t o , h i s employment t o do t h a t work

(Kavanagh v . The Commonwealth (1960) 103 C.L.R. 547 a t p . 559;

The Commonwealth v . O l i v e r , s u p r a , a t p . 358) . The c o u r s e o f

employment is a t empora l c o n c e p t and i t is u n n e c e s s a r y t h a t

t h e r e b e any c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n between t h e work which t h e

employee is employed t o do and t h e i n j u r y which he s u s t a i n s

(Kavanagh v . The Commonwealth, s u p r a , a t pp. 555, 570;

Commonwealth v . O l i v e r , s u p r a , a t pp. 359, 362) . The s c o p e o f

what is w i t h i n i t depends upon " t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e c o n n e c t i c between t h e employment and t h e t h i n g done by t h e employee" which

"cannot b u t remain a m a t t e r o f d e g r e e , i n which t i m e , p l a c e and

c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a s w e l l a s p r a c t i c e , must be c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r

w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e employment" ( p e r Dixon J . , Whi t t ingha

v. Commissioner o f Rai lways ( W . A . ) (1931) 46 C.L.R. 22 a t p . 29

and s e e , g e n e r a l l y , p e r S tephen J. B i l l W i l l i a m s P t y . L i m i t e d

v . W i l l i a m s , s u p r a , a t pp. 158-159.

I n The Commonwealth v . O l i v e r ( s u p r a ) t h e i n j u r i e s

which t h e employee s u f f e r e d were s u s t a i n e d w h i l e h e w a s p l a y i n g

a game o f c r i c k e t d u r i n g h i s l u n c h t i m e . The p l a y i n g of c r i c k e t

matcfies between g r o u p s o f employees " w a s coun tenanced , i f n o t

encouraged by" t h e employer . The p l a y i n g o f t h e game a t t h e

p r e c i s e p l a c e where i t was p l a y e d had been banned by t h e

employer b u t t h e p r o h i b i t i o n was n o t e n f o r c e d . The l o c a t i o n of

t h e p l a c e of employment was s u c h as t o make it u n l i k e l y t h a t

employees would l e a v e t h e s i t e o f t h e i r employment d u r i n g t h e i r

l u n c h t i m e b r e a k and t h e game was p l a y e d on t h e e m p l o y e r ' s

p r e m i s e s . I t w a s h e l d by a m a j o r i t y of t h e High Cour t (Dixon

C . J . , and Menzies J . , Owen J . d i s s e n t i n g ) t h a t i n t h e circum-

s t a n c e s of t h e c a s e t h e c o u r s e of t h e employment of t h e employee

e x t e n d e d o v e r t h e luncheon b r e a k w h i l e he remained on t h e premis

and , a c c o r d i n g l y , t h e i n j u r y s u f f e r e d by him a r o s e i n t h e

c o u r s e of h i s employment. I n t h e c o u r s e of h i s judgment, Dixon

C . J . , s a i d ( i b i d a t p. 3 5 8 ) :

" I n t h e p r e s e n t case I t h i n k t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

o f t h e employment make' i t c l e a r t h a t t h e employees

were n o t e x p e c t e d t o l e a v e t h e premises f o r Zunch,

t h a t t h e cus tom o f p l a y i n g f o r a t i m e d u r i n g t h e t h i r t

m i n u t e s a l lowed for Zunch was a r e c o g n i z e d p r a c t i c e

and t h e proper i n f e r e n c e i s t h a t t h e c o u r s e o f t h e

employment e x t e n d e d o v e r t h a t h a l f - h o u r N .

Menzies J . r e f e r r e d t o t h e judgment of J o r d a n C . J . , i n Davidson

v . Mould ( s u p r a ) and conc luded t h a t t h a t and o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s

e s t a b l i s h e d " t h a t a worker who is hav ing l u n c h on h i s e m p l o y e r ' s

p r e m i s e s w i t h h i s e m p l o y e r ' s s a n c t i o n is, save i n e x c e p t i o n a l

cases, " d o i n g s o m e t h i n g which h e w a s r e a s o n a b l y r e q u i r e d ,

e x p e c t e d o r a u t h o r i z e d t o d o i n o r d e r t o c a r r y o u t his d u t i e s w .

H i s Honour c o n t i n u e d ( i b i d a t p. 3 6 3 ) :

" I f t h i s i s t o be s a i d a b o u t t a k i n g Zunch, why s h o u l d

i t n o t a l s o be s a i d a f iou t t a k i n g a w a l k , d o z i n g i n

t h e sun , o r p l a y i n g a game o f t a b l e t e n n i s o r c r i c k e t

d u r i n g a b r e a k which i s p r o v i d e d a s a r e s p i t e from

work and n o t m e r e l y t o e n a b l e t h e worker t o have

someth ing t o e a t and d r i n k ? N

S u b s e q u e n t l y ,	i n h i s judgment ,	Mene ie s	J . ,	c o n c l u d e d	( i b i d ,	p .
364) :

11 I t seems t o me t h a t we must d e t e r m i n e t h e

q u e s t i o n b e f o r z u s upon t h e e v i d e n c e Zooked a t , n o t

a g a i n s t t h e background o f a p a r t i c u l a r d e c i s i o n g i v e n

t h i r t y y e u r s ago upon i t s own f a c t s , bu-b a g a i n s t t h e

Gackground o f what seems t o me t o be a w i d e l y - a c c e p t e d

and s e n s i b l e p r e s e n t - d a y p r a c t i c e o f employers encour -

ag ing workers t o spend i n t e r v a l s be tween work ing

h o u r s , wh ich must o f t e n be s p e n t upon t h e e m p l o y e r s '

p r e m i s e s , i n r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i z s . A g a i n s t t h i s

background t h e e v i d e n c e h e r e which shows t h a t t h e

CommonweaZth adopted t h e p r a c t i c e r e f e r r e d t o , does

seem t o me t o p o i n t t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i n p l a y i n g

c r i c k e t a s he d i d , t h e r e s p o n d e n t was engaged upon an

a c t i v i t y i n c i d e n t a l t o h i s employment" .

I t w a s p l a i n l y an i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r i n t h e d e c i s i o n

i n O l i v e r ' s Case ( s u p r a ) t h a t t h e i n j u r y wh ich t h e employee

s u s t a i n e d w a s s u s t a i n e d on t h e e m p l o y e r ' s premises. I n t h e

p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s i n j u r y w a s s u s t a i n e d on a

p l a y i n g f i e l d o v e r which h i s employe r had no c o n t r o l w h a t s o e v e r .

Were i t n o t f o r t h a t d i s t i n c t i o n a n d t h e f a c t t h a t t h e " l u n c h

t i m e p e r i o d " i n t h e p r e s e n t matter w a s c o n s i d e r a b l y l o n g e r t h a n

t h e ' ' l u n c h t i m e p e r i o d " i n O l i v e r ' s Case ( s u p r a ) t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s

case i n t h e p r e s e n t matter wou ld , i n my v i e w , b e a c o n s i d e r a b l y

s t r o n g e r o n e t h a n w a s t h e e m p l o y e e ' s case i n t h e Commonwealth

v. O l i v e r ( s u p r a ) . I n O l i v e r ' s Case ( s u p r a ) t h e game w a s

"countenanced i f n o t encouraged , by" t h e employer . I n t h e

p r e s e n t case t h e game was e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y encouraged by t h e

employer . I n O l i v e r ' s Case ( s u p r a ) , t h e game t o o k p l a c e i n

b r e a c h , a s t o t h e p r e c i s e l o c a t i o n , o f a n unenforced ban by

t h e employer . I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e employer a c t u a l l y

t r a n s p o r t e d t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o t h e p l a c e where t h e game w a s

p l a y e d . The p a r t i c u l a r game i n O l i v e r ' s Case ( s u p r a ) e n j o y e d

no p a r t i c u l a r r e c o g n i t i o n from t h e employer . The C o l l e c t o r o f

Customs e x t e n d e d h i s encouragement t o t h e p l a y e r s i n t h e game

i n t h e p r e s e n t ca.se and t h e o f f i c i a l p u b l i c a t i o n of t h e Bureau

f e a t u r e d t h e s u c c e s s i n i t o f t h e "Customs Greens".

I t must be r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e c o n t r o l which a n employ€

e n j o y s o v e r h i s p r e m i s e s is commonly a c r i t i c a l f a c t o r i n d e t e r -

mining t h a t an employee is i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s employment

n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e f a c t t h a t h e is o f f d u t y i n an i n t e r v a l

between working h o u r s . I t may w e l l b e t h a t , i n most c a s e s , t h e

f a c t t h a t a worker h a s l e f t h i s e m p l o y e r ' s p r e m i s e s a l t o g e t h e r

w i l l c o n s t i t u t e a p r ima f a c i e i n t e r r u p t i o n of t h e c o u r s e o f h i s

employment ( s e e , e . g . , Davidson v . Mould, s u p r a , a t p . 120 and

The Commonwealth v . O l i v e r , s u p r a , a t p . 3 6 3 ) . I t c a n n o t ,

however, b e s a i d as a matter o f law t h a t a n employee ' s c o u r s e

of employment e m p l o y e r ' s i s , of n e c e s s i t y , broken when e v e r h e l e a v e s h i s

p r e m i s e s d u r i n g an i n t e r v a l between work p e r i o d s .

I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e

r e s p o n d e n t l e f t t h e e m p l o y e r ' s p r e m i s e s was, t o no s m a l l e x t e n t ,

n e g a t i v e d by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e employer made p r e m i s e s a v a i l a b l e

i n which t h e employee c o u l d change i n t o h i s f o o t b a l l g e a r and

t h e n t r a n s f e r r e d him, i n a d e p a r t m e n t a l b u s , t o t h e p l a c e

where t h e game was p l a y e d . -

Th.e c o n c l u s i o n which I ha.ve r e a c h e d is t h a t t h e

T r i b u n a l ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s i n j u r y w a s s u s t a i n e d

i n t h e c o u r s e of h i s employment w a s r e a s o n a b l y open on t h e

e v i d e n c e b e f o r e i t . T h a t c o n c l u s i o n is s u f f i c i e n t t o d i s p o s e

of t h e matter i n f a v o u r of t h e r e s p o n d e n t . "If d i f f e r e n t

c o n c l u s i o n s are r e a s o n a b l y p o s s i b l e t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f which

is t h e c o r r e c t c o n c l u s i o n is a q u ' e s t i o n of fact" ( B i l l \ ' J i l l i a m s

P t y . L i m i t e d v . W i l l i a m s , s u p r a , a t p . 1 5 6 ) . I t is n o t , however

n e c e s s a r y t h a t I rest my d e c i s i o n on t h e a p p e a l on t h a t n a r r o w

g r o u n d a l o n e f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t , on t h e f a c t s b e f o r e t h e

T r i b u n a l , I a g r e e w i t h t h e c o n c l u s i o n which i t r e a c h e d . I n

t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , it is u n n e c e s s a r y f o r m e t o c o n s i d e r a n

a l t e r n a t i v e s u b m i s s i o n made on b e h a l f o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t t h a t

t h e i n j u r y ,	i n a n y . e v e n t ,	arose o u t of	t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s employ-
ment .

I a f f i r m t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Commonwealth Employees1

Compensa t ion T r i b u n a l . I o r d e r t h e a p p e l l a n t Commonwealth t o

pay t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s c o s t s o f t h i s a p p e a l .