I.C. Formwork Services Pty Limited v Moir (No 2)

The appeal concerned the determination of the substantive law applicable to a common law claim for workers' compensation. The appellant, I.C. Formwork Services Pty Limited, appealed a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory which had found that the *Workers Compensation Act 1951* (ACT) applied to the respondent, Mr Moir. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr Moir "usually works in the ACT" for the purposes of section 36B(3) of the Act.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was to determine the correct application of section 36B(3) of the *Workers Compensation Act 1951* (ACT) in ascertaining the "State or Territory of connection" for a worker who performed work in multiple jurisdictions. Specifically, the Court had to decide whether Mr Moir's work arrangements meant he "usually works in the ACT" within the meaning of the legislation, thereby establishing the ACT as the relevant jurisdiction for his common law claim.

The Court reasoned that the phrase "usually works in the ACT" required an assessment of the worker's habitual place of employment, considering the totality of their work activities. It was held that Mr Moir's evidence established that he usually worked in both the ACT and New South Wales, and that the previous judicial interpretation of "usually works" did not necessitate exclusive work within a single jurisdiction. The Court found that the primary judge had erred in their application of the statutory test, leading to the conclusion that the ACT was indeed the State or Territory of connection. Consequently, the appeal was upheld.