Transport Accident Commission v CMT Construction of Metropolitan Tunnels

The Transport Accident Commission (TAC) brought proceedings against CMT Construction of Metropolitan Tunnels (CMT) concerning a claim for statutory benefits under the *Accident Compensation Act 1985* (Vic). The dispute arose from injuries sustained by an employee of CMT, who was involved in a motor vehicle accident while travelling to a worksite. The TAC sought to recover payments made to the injured employee, arguing that the accident arose out of or in the course of CMT's employment.

The central legal issue before the High Court of Australia was whether the employee's journey to the worksite constituted an "arising out of or in the course of employment" for the purposes of the *Accident Compensation Act 1985* (Vic). Specifically, the Court had to determine if the employer's control over the employee's travel, or any special circumstances, brought the journey within the scope of employment, thereby entitling the TAC to recover statutory benefits.

The High Court held that the general rule that a journey to or from work is not in the course of employment applied in this instance. The Court reasoned that while the employer provided a vehicle and paid for fuel, these factors alone did not establish sufficient control over the employee's travel to deem it part of the employment. There were no special circumstances, such as the employee being on a "special mission" or the employer deriving a direct benefit from the travel beyond the employee's attendance at work, that would displace the general rule. The Court affirmed that the employer's obligation to provide a safe system of work did not extend to the employee's private journey.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the TAC's appeal, finding that the accident did not arise out of or in the course of employment.