Case Note
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has recently clarified the law as it relates to when an employee is considered to be on duty while temporarily absent from their employment. DibbsBarker, on behalf of Comcare, successfully argued that a Federal Police officer was not on duty when he suffered an injury during a soccer match at the Australian Police & Emergency Services Games.
The Facts
The Applicant is employed as a Protective Service Officer with the Australian Federal Police ("AFP") at Sydney Airport. He attended the 2008 Australian Police & Emergency Services Games ("the Games"), at Coffs Harbour between 11 and 18 October 2008.
On 13 October 2008, the Applicant injured his left knee during a soccer match at the Games. He lodged a claim for compensation which was denied. In doing so, Comcare did not dispute that the Applicant sustained a left knee injury when participating at the Games, however, Comcare did dispute that the Applicant's left knee injury arose out of, or in the course of his Commonwealth employment because, at the time he sustained his injury, he was on recreational leave and was not considered to be on duty when participating at the Games.
The Tribunal had to decide whether the Applicant's injury arose out of, or in the course of, his employment or, was significantly contributed to by factors involved with the Applicants employment. In doing so, the AAT had to consider three issues: whether the Applicant was on a "temporary" break from his employment, whether his employer directed or requested the Applicant to attend the sporting event or whether the sporting event was associated with the Applicant's employment.
The Decision
The Tribunal found that, although the AFP facilitated the attendance of employees at the Games, employees attended in their own time. Even though the applicant was representing the AFP at the Games, the activites undertaken by him were found not to be associated with his employment or connected with his duties as a Protective Service Officer. In reaching this decision, the Tribunal referred to the High Court's decsion in Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd (1992) 173 CLR 473.
Author: Vivian Haddad, Lawyer
Direct Line: 61 2 8233 9718
Mobile: 0428 633 279
Partner Responsible: Brett Ablong
