WCRA: work interval / interlude when injured & employer inducement / encouragement the key

Huhu v Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 021

An example of another interval / interlude decision flowing from a factual matrix of the worker being at home when the injury was sustained, and hot on the heels of the running out the shower decision (on appeal), both decided at first instance by Deputy President O’Connor.

In this instance, the worker was injured washing the work truck at home. At first instance Deputy President O’Connor preferred the evidence of the employer that the worker was not permitted to take the truck home, and in any event, any cleaning was limited to inside the cabin and the end of the shift.

President Martin was not persuaded to interfere with the factual finding and found the High Court decision in Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Limited (1992) 173 CLR 473 as considered recently in Comcare v PVYW  (2013) 250 CLR 246 was correctly applied.

David Cormack – Brisbane Barrister & Mediator

Related Posts

Recent Comments



    Discover more from David Cormack, Barrister

    Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

    Continue reading