Ford and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by an employee of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) against a decision by Comcare. The employee, who worked as a Certificate Management Team Leader, sustained an injury while accessing his workplace on the 13th level of 720 Bourke Street, Melbourne. Access to this level was via lifts or a ramp from the second level, which was itself accessible from the Bourke Street entry. The employee preferred to use the stairs, which were part of the building's common areas and accessible to the public, to maintain his fitness. The dispute centred on whether the employee's injury arose out of or in the course of his employment for the purposes of the *Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (the Act).

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the employee's injury arose out of his employment. This involved considering the application of the principle that the Act should be interpreted beneficially in favour of employees, and assessing the causal connection between the employee's chosen mode of access to his workplace and his employment. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the employee's use of a route available to the general public precluded the injury from being considered as arising out of employment, and whether the employer had any duty of care in relation to the employee's journey.

The Tribunal reasoned that the employee's injury arose out of his employment. It applied the principle of beneficial interpretation of the Act and considered the findings of Kitto J in *ACI Metal Stamping & Spinning Pty Ltd v Boczulik*. The Tribunal found that the employee's use of the stairs, which were accessible to the public, did not negate the possibility that his journey arose out of his employment. Crucially, the Tribunal was satisfied that the employee's injury was sufficiently causally connected to his employment to establish that it arose out of his employment, notwithstanding that the specific route taken was also available to the public.

The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and remitted the matter to Comcare for reconsideration. Comcare was directed to take into account the Tribunal's finding that the applicant's injury arose out of his employment.