Section 6(2) of the SRC Act states:
6(2)Subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), (iii), (iv), (v) or (vii) does not apply where the travel:
(a)was by a route that substantially increased the risk of sustaining an injury when compared with a more direct route; or
(b)was interrupted in a way that substantially increased the risk of sustaining an injury.
This question is testing s 6(2)(a), ie. determining whether the injury to the client did not arise out of, or in the course of employment because they travelled by a route which substantially increased the risk of injury when compared with a direct route.
The “substantially increased risk” provisions only apply to travel claims. These are listed in the following subparapraphs of s 6(1):
(ii)travel between place of residence and place of work;
(iii)travel between normal residence and temporary residence;
(iv)travel between places of work;
(v)travel between place of work or place of residence and a place of education;
(viii)travel to another place for a number of employment-related purposes:
- obtaining a medical certificate;
- receiving medical treatment;
- undergoing a rehabilitation program;
- receiving a payment of compensation;
- undergoing a medical examination or rehabilitation assessment;
- receiving money due to him or her.
Note that, where the assessor decides that there has been a substantially increased risk of injury, the investigation will conclude that the client's injury did not “arise out of, or in the course of, employment”. In effect, the answer to this question is applied not only to s 6(1) travel claims but also to the definition of “injury” in s 4(1).