A plaintiff who was between contracts with Victoria University was held to be an "employee" allowing him to claim statutory benefits for a heart condition.

On 28 April 2003 the plaintiff had entered into contract of employment with the defendant which was not to commence until 7 May 2003. On 30 April, whilst undertaking research at the defendant's library, the plaintiff suffered a heart attack which was subsequently diagnosed as a 'dissecting aorta', necessitating his absence from work for the foreseeable future.

The defendant denied compensation on the grounds that the injury occurred at the time when the plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant and that the act of researching was not incidental to his employment as it was conducted without remuneration.

The plaintiff submitted the he was in the course of employment as the act of research was an activity expected of him as outlined in the position description within the contract of employment.

The Court was faced with two issues. Namely:

  • Whether at the time of the injury the plaintiff was a worker within the definition of Section 5 of the Accident Compensation Act (The Act), and;
  • Whether at the time of the injury the plaintiff's conduct amounted to act "within the course of employment."

In determining the first issue, His Honour Judge Bowman referred to Section 5 of the Act which states:

  • "Worker means....a person....who has entered into or works under a contract of service....whether the contract is express or implied, is oral or is in writing"

His Honour held that notwithstanding that it was "... possible that a contractual arrangement such as the one in the present case had not been anticipated by the legislature" it is "... indisputable" that the plaintiff is a "... person who has entered into a contract of service."

His Honour further held that in order to be deemed a worker within the meaning of the Act, it was unnecessary for the plaintiff to have commenced work to the extent of "... picking up tools and striking a blow" and that it was not "...mandatory that works be performed under that contract".

Regarding the second issue, His Honour referred to the judgment of Adam J in Park v Peach who held that to determine that if plaintiff's conduct is within the course of employment, the activity the plaintiff was engaged in must've been sufficiently connected to employment. In this case, notwithstanding that the activity also assisted the plaintiff's professional development, the activity was deemed to be "... belonging" to the employment.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.