Home | © 2019 GA Publishing Mosman Sydney


1987 Act section 11 Recess claims>>

Please also see Interval >>

Course of employment >>

Workcover Authority Operational Instructions: Determining Liability for Recess Claims >>

during any ordinary recess or authorised absence...

Mr Harrington in Allen v Hudson Global (Aust) PL [2006] NSWWCCPD 360 at [58]: "The fact that an activity can be categorised as an activity in the course of employment does not preclude the activity from being covered by another provision of the 1987 Act.

"For example many injuries that are compensable under the journey provisions are also compensable because the injury arises out of or in the course of employment. This often happens when an employee's means of transport, to his home after a days work is the work vehicle with the equipment in it so that he can take the equipment to a different worksite the next day. If on the way home, the employee is injured he would be entitled to claim compensation either under the journey provisions of the 1987 Act or alternatively to claim, compensation on the basis, the injury arose out of his employment under section 4 of the 1987 Act. [59]

"In Hatzimanolis, based on the facts accepted by the High Court, Mr Hatzimanolis could have presented his case in thealternative under section 11 of the 1987 Act. His employer having provided the vehicle for the excursion, and given permission to go on the excursion, arguably, the injury, therefore occurred during an authorised absence from his work activities."

Previous page: Reasons     Next page: Recission

© 2019 GA Publishing Mosman Sydney | piets/wcms | Account

Wills Estates Monthly

12 editions - $385 incl GST

Subscribe Sample

Personal Injury Monthly

12 editions $385 incl GST

Subscribe Sample