Opinion

Home > Blog > Blog: Farnham v Pruden & Anor [2016] QCA 18

Farnham v Pruden & Anor [2016] QCA 18

8th Apr 2016

Farnham v Pruden & Anor [2016] QCA 18

The applicant, Farnham, worked from home as a community support worker for the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian (the Commission). She suffered personal injuries caused by her involvement in a multi-vehicle road accident while travelling between her home and a foster home in May 2012.

During her employment, Farnham would use her own computer to log on to the Commission’s computer system, was paid an allowance per kilometre travelled to clients’ homes (keeping a record of same), and was paid from the time she left her home. Prior to commencing the subject journey, Farnham had prepared for the home visit by logging on to the Commission’s system, confirmed the appointment and had undertaken other administrative tasks.

The matter was heard as first instance in the District Court of Mackay. The central question at trial was whether the assessment of damages was to be carried out in accordance with the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) (CLA) or the common law.

In deciding on the application for leave to appeal, Morrison JA, with whom McMurdo P and Gotterson JA agreed, considered whether the learned trial judge erred in deciding that the provisions of the CLA applied to the claim.

Morrison JA noted that s5(1)(b) of the CLA provides that the ‘Act does not apply to … awards of damages for personal injury if the harm resulting from the breach of duty is or includes an injury for which compensation is payable under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 [(Qld) (WCRA)], other than an injury to which ss34(1)(c) or 35 of that Act applies’.[1]

Section 35(1)(a) of the WCRA provides that ‘injury to a worker is also taken to arise out of, or in the course of, the worker’s employment if the event happens while the worker is on a journey between the worker’s home and place of employment.’ His Honour referred to the decision in Ballandis v Sweebs,[2] which confirmed that, in effect, s35(1) deems an injury which happens on a journey between the workers’ place of employment and home as arising out of, or in the course of, the worker’s employment.[3]

The applicant contended that s35 was inapplicable because at the time of the accident she was not on a journey between her home and place of employment, but rather her home was, in fact, a place of employment, so that she was going from one place of employment to another place of employment.[4]

His Honour rejected the applicant’s contention on the following four grounds[5]:

• because the worker does some work at home does not mean that [the home] loses its character as the worker’s home;
• because the worker does some work at home does not turn the home into a ‘place of employment’ under the Act;
• because Ms Farnham was paid for the time she worked while at home does not turn her home into a ‘place of employment’;
• because Ms Farnham was paid for the time she spent travelling to clients’ homes does not mean the journey ceases to be one between her home and a place of employment.

The decision confirms that the CLA provisions for assessment of damages will apply to personal injury claims in circumstances where the plaintiff is on a journey between his or her home office and another ‘place of employment’, as that term is defined in the WRCA.

 

Shane Lawlor is a Lawyer at Gouldson Legal, a Queensland personal injury plaintiff litigation firm. Shane has practiced exclusively in personal injury matters since his admission in 2013. His broadened approach to each claim ensures all avenues of compensation are comprehensively investigated to achieve better client outcomes.

 

The views and opinions expressed in these articles are the authors' and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA).

Learn about how you can get involved and contribute an article. 

[1] Farnham v Pruden & Anor [2016] QCA 18 at [21].

[2] [2015] QCA 76.

[3] Farnham v Pruden & Anor [2016] QCA 18 at [29].

[4] Farnham v Pruden & Anor [2016] QCA 18 at [33].

[5] Farnham v Pruden & Anor [2016] QCA 18 at [36] to [39].

Tags: Workers compensation Civil liability Shane Lawlor