ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v Perry

ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed an award made by the Compensation Court in favour of Mr Perry (the respondent), concerning a workers compensation claim. The dispute centred on whether Mr Perry's injury was sustained in the course of his employment, particularly in light of his residence on the employer's property.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the injury was sustained in the course of employment, whether the employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury, and whether the trial judge had adequately applied section 9A of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW). Specifically, the court considered whether section 9A was satisfied merely because the injury arose out of or in the course of employment, and whether the employee's residence on the employer's property was a consequence of inducement or encouragement.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in law in their application of section 9A. While there was a finding that the injury occurred in the course of employment and evidence capable of establishing that it arose out of employment, an explicit finding to that effect was not made. The court noted that the underlying facts were capable of establishing a substantial connection between the employment and the injury, but this was not mandated. The cause of the fire, which was relevant to section 9A, had been inadequately explored and was not the subject of findings.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the award made by the Compensation Court, and remitted the matter for further determination. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.