Le Brocq v Workcover Authority of NSW

The appeal concerned a decision of the Acting Deputy President of the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales, which overturned an Arbitrator's finding regarding a worker's compensation claim. The appellant, Mr Le Brocq, sought to challenge the Acting Deputy President's conclusion that his injury did not arise out of or in the course of his employment. The respondent, Workcover Authority of New South Wales, by way of a Notice of Contention, argued that the Arbitrator had correctly found that the appellant was not acting in the course of his employment and had, in fact, abandoned his employment through his conduct.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Acting Deputy President erred in law by misapplying the principles established in *Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation* (1992) 173 CLR 473, and whether there was a sufficient connection between the appellant's activities at the time of his injury and his employment. The court was required to consider the factual findings made by the Arbitrator and the Acting Deputy President, particularly concerning the appellant's use of a forklift to remove steel benches, and whether he had obtained permission for this activity and if it occurred on his employer's leased premises.

The court reasoned that the Acting Deputy President's decision was based on the factual determination that the appellant was not engaged in any work for his employer at the time of the accident. This finding was supported by the agreed common ground that the appellant was not engaged in work on behalf of his employer on Sunday, 18 September 2005, when the injury occurred. The court noted that while there were contested facts before the Arbitrator, the Acting Deputy President's conclusion was focused on the legal question of whether the appellant's actions had a sufficient connection to his employment, a matter that turned on the facts as found. The court found no error of law in the Acting Deputy President's assessment of the facts and the application of legal principles.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay Workcover's costs.