Compo claim for driveway injury must be accepted

The worker was employed by a state utility as powerline worker. Based at Port Pirie, his job involved both office and field-based tasks. He was required to be on a one-in-four week standby roster to attend call-out work outside of normal hours, and was provided with a work vehicle to be housed at his property.

On the afternoon of 6 September 2019, he received a text message requesting him to attend a job at Jamestown along with other workers on the standby crew.

Case Update


A tribunal has found that compensation must be paid for an injury sustained by a worker in the driveway of his own home, because the journey he was about to undertake had a real and substantial connection with his employment. The case gave rise to a consideration of whether South Australia’s current workers comp legislation imposes a more or less stringent requirement for a connection between the injury and the employment, than the previous workers’ comp Act.

The injury


After changing into his work attire, he got into the vehicle then accidentally dropped his keys, which fell out the driver’s side door and landed on the driveway.

While remaining seated in the driver’s seat, he leaned out the driver’s side door to pick up the keys. Being a four-wheel drive vehicle, however, the driver’s seat was elevated approximately 90cm from the ground, and the reaching action caused him to suffer a strain to his back.

He reported the injury, then sought medical treatment at the local hospital.

As he was incapacitated for work and had incurred medical expenses, he put in a workers comp claim to cover medical costs and provide weekly payments.

His employer rejected the claim, however, on the grounds that the injury did not arise from his employment and his employment was not a significant contributing cause of the injury.

The worker challenged this rejection of his claim, and the case was heard in the South Australian Employment Tribunal.


In the tribunal


The worker maintained that he was injured in the course of carrying out his duties, or at least, in the course of a journey undertaken in order to carry out the duties of employment, so the injury should be compensable under the Return to Work Act 2014 (SA) (the Act).

His employer argued that at the time of the injury, the worker was not carrying out duties of employment but merely undertaking activity preparatory to undertaking duties of employment. The employer’s submission contended that the worker was not in the course of a journey at the relevant time, as he was at his place of residence; alternatively, if he was in the course of a journey, there was no real and substantial connection between the employment and the journey or between the employment and the accident.

In a case previously heard by the tribunal, the deputy president judge had concluded that that a real and substantial connection between the employment and the accident is a prerequisite for compensability.

In this case, the deputy president judge found that he was unable to agree with the conclusion arrived at in the other case. Instead, he found that the present Act requires a real and substantial connection between the employment and the journey being undertaken at the time of the accident out of which the injury arises.

He noted that the change in the wording of the provision between the previous and the current Acts involves a shifting of emphasis from the connection between the accident and the employment to an emphasis on the connection between the journey and the employment.

He therefore ordered that the employer’s decision to reject the worker’s claim must be set aside, and the claim must be accepted.

The bottom line: It remains to be seen whether a connection with the journey rather than with the accident will be considered sufficient to justify compensation in future cases involving journey injuries.


Read the judgment


Thelan v Utilities Management Pty Ltd [2021] SAET 6 (18 January 2021)

 Originally posted on http://workplaceohs.com.au

Contact Us

Zenergy News

Directors' duties for psych risks unpacked in new report
April 23, 2025
The WHS obligations of company directors include taking reasonable steps to understand the psychological hazards in their workplaces, and this is a "personal" prosecutable duty, a new guide for directors warns. Directors' obligations include establishing that their organisations and their management "are equipped with appropriate resources and processes to eliminate or minimise these risks to the extent that is reasonably practicable", the guide by the Australian Institute of Company Directors and law firm King & Wood Mallesons says. Most of any organisation's work to address psychosocial hazards will be "driven by management", given the complexity of the risks and the deep operational knowledge required to guide action, it says. "The board plays a supporting role in constructively challenging these efforts and maintaining oversight of how effective psychosocial risk management contributes to broader organisational culture and leadership." Under Australia's national model WHS laws – adopted by all jurisdictions other than Victoria, which has similar legislation – officers have a duty to exercise due diligence to confirm their organisation is meeting its WHS obligations. (See section 27 of NSW's version of the laws, for example.) This duty is a "personal duty, meaning [officers] can be prosecuted for failing to meet their due diligence obligations", the guide says. "Prosecution typically requires proof that the officer failed to take reasonable steps to comply with their duty, assessed in the context of the organisation's overall safety and health management system," it says. These due diligence obligations apply to paid directors, and are "recommended" for volunteer directors, who can be prosecuted in limited circumstances. "While non-executive directors have not been the focus of WHS regulators to date, this can change, and regulatory expectations are rising," the guide notes. According to the 12-page document , company boards and governance play a crucial role in ensuring psychosocial risks are managed effectively. Directors must oversee management's efforts at identifying and implementing control measures, set expectations and confirm that the necessary frameworks are in place. "This includes seeking information, reviewing board reports, assessing organisational culture, and challenging management where needed to strengthen risk controls," the guide says. Examples of how boards should address the workplace factors that create psychosocial risks include: Overseeing how managers monitor the risks associated with work design by drawing on complaints data, employee surveys, and absence and turnover rates, and engaging regularly with management to assess risks and evaluate measures; Confirming that management is complying with the positive duty to eliminate workplace sexual harassment, and obtaining regular reports on key behavioural risks involving code of conduct breaches and harassment cases; Setting expectations for management to provide workers with practical assistance and timely consultation in the event of organisational change and restructures, which can create significant stress; Engaging with management to review how it is addressing remote work risks, and ensuring there they have a clear policy to guide them in determining when remote arrangements are appropriate; and Overseeing how HR and performance management processes are managed, and confirming that investigation procedures are fair, workers have access to appropriate support, and outcomes are handled as consistently as possible. Governing WHS Psychosocial Risks: A primer for directors, by the Australian Institute of Company Directors and King & Wood Mallesons, April 2025 This article has been reproduced with permission from OHS Alert, and the original version appears at www.ohsalert.com.au.
April 7, 2025
Zenergy recently hosted Women in Safety, a special networking event dedicated to fostering collaboration in the health, safety, and wellbeing sector. Held on March 20, 2025, at The Winery, Surry Hills, this event provided a relaxed and welcoming atmosphere where professionals gathered to exchange insights, share experiences, and build meaningful connections. With attendees from diverse industries—including construction, logistics, corporate sectors, and more—the event highlighted the vital role of women in shaping safer workplaces across Australia.
March 25, 2025
Podcasts have become a dominant force in the world of media, revolutionising how we consume information and entertainment and the WHS, Environment & Sustainability is no different! As the podcast industry continues to expand, listeners are discovering a wealth of benefits, from educational insights to fostering community connections. In this article, we share some of the leading podcasts and why they’ve become a growing part of modern WHS, Environment & Sustainability consumption. Here are some of the leading podcasts that every WHS, Environmental, and Sustainability professional should tune into:
March 24, 2025
Colin Hansen, WHS Director John Holland - M7M12 Project
March 3, 2025
Zenergy invites you to be part of the prestigious 2025 Australian Workplace Health & Safety Awards (AWHSA) —a national platform dedicated to recognising outstanding achievements in workplace health and safety. These awards celebrate individuals and organisations that are making a real impact in fostering safer, healthier work environments.
February 28, 2025
Australia has enacted mandatory sustainability reporting requirements, effective from 1 January 2025, through the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Act 2024. These regulations mandate that large entities disclose climate-related financial information as part of their annual reporting obligations.
More Posts