SZEIQ v MIMIA & Anor

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal in *SZEIQ v MIMIA & Anor*. 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 applicant had been employed by the Commonwealth.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the applicant's injury, sustained when the applicant tripped and fell on a public footpath while walking from their home to their place of employment, constituted an injury suffered "in the course of employment" for the purposes of section 14(1) of the SRC Act. This required the Court to consider the scope of the phrase "in the course of employment" in the context of commuting.

The High Court affirmed the established principle that, generally, injuries sustained during a commute to or from work are not considered to be "in the course of employment." Their Honours noted that while there are exceptions to this general rule, such as where the employer requires the employee to travel, or where the travel itself is part of the employee's duties, the facts of this case did not fall within any such exception. The applicant's journey was a private one, undertaken for their own purposes, and the employer did not exercise any control over the route or the manner of travel. The Court found that the injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment.

The appeal was dismissed.