External

Interruptions only occur if a journey has commenced and can best be seen as a distinct break in that journey.

Claims managers should collect the following facts before establishing whether an interruption to the employee's journey has occurred:

  • a map of the journey taken, including where it was intended to finish; and

  • how long the interruption was for.

After identifying and defining the interruption, then consider whether that interruption substantially increased the risk of injury.

Stopping at the local shop to collect a loaf of bread (not a significant break in the journey), or picking up the children from childcare (this should reasonably be considered to be part of the journey route, and not an interruption) would be most unlikely to significantly alter the risk of sustaining an injury.

The intent of this part of section 6 (2) is to establish:

(a)how long the interruption took in relation to the whole journey; and

(b)whether it was part of the employee's journey to or from work.

In looking at (a), generally if the interruption exceeds the time of the total journey by a significant amount (say, a 2 hour deviation to play squash during a 30 minute journey), then look at whether that interruption substantially increased any risk of injury.

The break in a journey to play squash forms a distinct interruption which may have substantially increased the risk of sustaining an injury.  This will need to be established taking into account whether the interruption may have meant that the employee then had to travel the rest of the way home in:

  • darkness;

  • heavier traffic; or

  • inclement weather conditions.

Point (b) above has regard to whether any interruption is just a minor pause in the employee's journey route, rather than an interruption.

The following case demonstrates where an interruption did increase an employee's risk of sustaining injury.

MAUNDER v COMMONWEALTH (1983)

On 23/08/1980, Captain Maunder sustained personal injuries from which he later died.  It was claimed that the injuries were sustained while the employee was on a journey from his employment.

On the night of 22/08/1980, Maunder attended a party in the Sergeant's Mess, for which the Commanding Officer had given tacit approval.

The party commenced at 5:30 pm and continued until the following morning.  Maunder remained in the mess until 2:30 or 3:00 am on 23/08.

It was found that it was most likely that after Maunder left the party, he either rested in his office, which was adjacent to the Mess, or in his car, parked nearby.  Based on evidence, it was probable that the employee then left the depot at about 4:30 am.

The Federal Court found that, while attendance at the party was incidental to the employee's employment up to a certain point in time, by the time Maunder drove himself from the depot, any employment nexus had ceased, and the journey from the depot was not a journey from his employment.

While this case was dealt with under the 1971 Act, the journey principle involving interruption still applies.  Not only was the employee inebriated, but tiredness also may have contributed to the injuries sustained.

Maunder demonstrates that his journey was interrupted to such an extent that he did substantially increase the risk of sustaining an injury.