Kazzi v Mannings Towing Pty Limited

This matter came before the High Court of Australia concerning an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Mannings Towing Pty Limited, sought to challenge a decision of the Court of Appeal. The respondents were the State Compensation Board and another party, though their specific roles in the dispute are not fully detailed in this excerpt. The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of the *Workers Compensation Act* and whether an injury sustained by an employee fell within its coverage.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether an employee injured while voluntarily attempting to prevent a crime or assist a third party was excluded from the coverage of the *Workers Compensation Act*. This question hinged on whether such voluntary actions could be considered to advance the employer's interests or possess an intention to serve the employer. A second, broader issue concerned whether an injury could arise out of employment if, at the time of the injury, the worker was not engaged in an activity incidental to their employment, even if a causal connection between the employment and the injury existed. The applicant argued that the Court of Appeal had effectively removed the disjunctive nature of "arising out of or in the course of the employment," imposing a test that required an employee to be within the course of employment for an injury to arise out of it.

The applicant's submissions, as presented by Mr. B.G. Gross QC, drew upon the dissenting judgment of Priestley J in the Court of Appeal. This dissent, in turn, referred to the Court of Appeal's own decision in *Tarry v Warringah Shire Council*. The reasoning highlighted the principle that an injury could arise out of employment even if the employee was not performing duties in accordance with their responsibilities at the time, provided there was a causal nexus between the employment and the injury. This was illustrated by a case involving an altercation between employees concerning their duties, where the injury was found to have arisen out of employment despite the employee engaging in misconduct by fighting. The applicant contended that the majority in the Court of Appeal had erred in their interpretation of the statutory test.