Dring v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2021] FCAFC 50

Dring v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2021] FCAFC 50

The Tribunal did not err in law by finding that Ms Dring’s injury did not arise out of, or in the course of, her employment. The injury, though it occurred at the hotel where she was required to stay, followed an extended period of non-work-related socialising and had an insufficient connection with her employment to attract statutory compensation. Not all injuries sustained at an employer-allocated place during a work trip arise 'in the course of employment'; connection to employment must be assessed by reference to both place and activity at the time of injury.

Parties
Appellant: Danielle Dring; Respondent: Telstra Corporation Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From a Decision of the Federal Court (which Was Itself an Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Workers' Compensation, Course of Employment, Judicial Review – Question of Law, Employer’s Liability for Injury, Meaning of ‘in the Course of Employment’
Compensation Law Administrative Law Employment Law Workers' Compensation Course of Employment Judicial Review – Question of Law Employer’s Liability for Injury Meaning of ‘in the Course of Employment’

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Danielle Dring

Appellant

Telstra Corporation Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From a Decision of the Federal Court (which Was Itself an Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injury suffered by Ms Dring arose out of, or in the course of, her employment with Telstra within the meaning of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal and primary judge applied the correct legal test to determine liability for compensation for an injury occurring at a place provided by the employer
  3. 3 Whether the injury had sufficient connection with employment to attract compensation under s 14 of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in law by finding that Ms Dring’s injury did not arise out of, or in the course of, her employment. The injury, though it occurred at the hotel where she was required to stay, followed an extended period of non-work-related socialising and had an insufficient connection with her employment to attract statutory compensation. Not all injuries sustained at an employer-allocated place during a work trip arise 'in the course of employment'; connection to employment must be assessed by reference to both place and activity at the time of injury.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The Appellant is to pay the costs of the Respondent.