Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd v Vanceva

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION:		Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd v Vanceva [2011] NSWWCCPD 72
APPELLANT:		Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT:		Ana Vanceva
INSURER:		CGU Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited
FILE NUMBER:		A1-3494/11
ARBITRATOR:	Ms E Grotte
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:		12 September 2011
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:		14 December 2011
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:		Section 11 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; meaning of “place of employment”; whether worker was temporarily absent from her place of employment while buying coffee; personal injury
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:		Deputy President Bill Roche
HEARING:		On the papers
REPRESENTATION:		Appellant:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Respondent:	Walker Legal
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:		The Senior Arbitrator’s determination dated 12 September 2011 is confirmed. The appellant employer is to pay the respondent worker’s costs of the appeal, as agreed or assessed.

INTRODUCTION

1. The issue in this case is whether the worker received a “personal injury” in circumstances to which s 11 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) apply. That section provides:

“11 Recess claims

If a worker on any day on which the worker has attended at the worker’s place of employment pursuant to the worker’s contract of service or training contract:

(a) is temporarily absent from that place on that day during any ordinary recess or authorised absence,

(b) does not during that absence voluntarily subject himself or herself to any abnormal risk of injury, and

(c) receives a personal injury during that absence,

the injury is, for the purposes of this Act, an injury arising out of or in the course of employment, and compensation is payable accordingly.”

1. The case turns on the meaning of the phrase “place of employment”, which is not defined in the Workers Compensation Acts, and whether the worker was temporarily absent from that place when she fell and suffered her injuries.

BACKGROUND

1. The respondent worker, Ana Vanceva, is an engineer. She normally worked for the appellant employer, Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd, in the Ernst & Young building in the Sydney central business district. At the time of her accident, she was working on assignment with Glenfield Junction Alliance (Glenfield). Glenfield conducts its business at level 4 of Tower A at 821 Pacific Highway, Chatswood, described by counsel for Ms Vanceva as “a strata level” (T14.56).

2. On the morning of 11 October 2010, Ms Vanceva was performing her usual duties at her desk on level 4 of Tower A. At about 11.30 am, she left level 4 and caught the lift to a lower level, walked down some stairs and left the building through a rotating door on the ground floor. She then walked down some more stairs to a café in the ground floor of Tower B, also at 821 Pacific Highway. The Towers are known as Zenith Towers and, though they are on the same block of land, they are separate buildings. They share a common foyer, courtyards and ground level.

3. After arriving at…