SZDOU v MIMIA & Anor

SZDOU (the applicant) sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Federal Court. The dispute concerned the applicant's claim for compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (the SRC Act) for an injury sustained while travelling to work. The respondents were MIMIA (the employer) and Comcare (the insurer).

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the applicant's injury, sustained in a motor vehicle accident while travelling from his home to his place of employment, constituted an injury sustained "in the course of his employment" within the meaning of section 14(1) of the SRC Act. This required consideration of the established common law principles regarding the scope of employment, particularly in the context of commuting.

Gummow and Heydon JJ held that the common law position, which generally excludes injuries sustained during ordinary commuting from the course of employment, remained applicable under the SRC Act. Their Honours reasoned that the applicant's travel to work was not undertaken for the purposes of his employer's business, nor was there any special circumstance that would bring the commute within the scope of his employment. The fact that the employer may have benefited indirectly from the employee's attendance at work was not sufficient to alter this conclusion.

Special leave to appeal was refused.