b'CASE LAWWORK FROM HOMELauren Vercoe v Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme[2024] SAET 91What happened: A programmer working from home with employer approval injured herself while stepping over a pet fence during a paidbreak. While this is a case from South Australia, and hence a different jurisdiction from a workers compensationperspective, it provides a strong cautionary note to employers nonetheless. In September 2022, the employee received approval from her employer to work from home for a day to look after acolleague\'s puppy. She set up a temporary pet fence in her home office, separating the puppy from her pet rabbit, whichwas kept in a cage in the same area. Taking a break, she attempted to step over the fence while making her way to thekitchen, but tripped, fell, and injured her shoulder and knee.The employee asserted that her injury arose from employment, as her home office was her workplace during herapproved remote work shift. She claimed that she fell during the course of a paid break and that, consequently, herinjuries arose from employment.The workers compensation insurer rejected the claim on the basis that it was not satisfied that the employeesemployment was a significant contributing cause of her injuries. The insurer argued that, by setting up a pet fence acrossa walkway (without the employers direction or knowledge), the employee created a clear and unusual hazard. The two main issues before the South Australia Employment Court (SAET)Outcome:were:The SAET concluded that employment whether the injury arose out of employment; andwas a substantial cause of the injuries whether the employment was a significant contributing cause.because the fence erected by the In making their ruling, the SAET considered:employee to manage her colleagues the increased workplace flexibility afforded to the employeepuppy was a feature of her place of the use of her private residence as her authorised place of employmentemployment on the day of the incident. on the day of the incidentIn the tribunals view, the fence blocking the degree of autonomy she had in deciding when to take breaksa clear pathway between the sunroom the employers encouragement for employees to take short breaks awayand kitchen created a hazard, which was from their workstation regularly.the only cause of the injuries.Magistrate Carrel observed that whileworking from home arrangements "have Practical Implementation/Learnings: benefits for both employers and workers, 1.Working from home = workplaceEmployers must recognise thatthose benefits are accompanied by an employees home can legally be deemed their workplace,additional risks". meaning injuries sustained there (even during authorised breaks)The case will proceed to determine can be compensable under workers compensation laws.compensation. 2.Unusual home hazards still countEven if an employee creates ahazard (e.g. a pet fence) without employer direction or knowledge,it can still be found that the injury arose from employment,especially in no-fault compensation schemes.3.Establish WHS controls for home workEmployers shouldintroduce strong WHS protocols for remote work, such asmandatory safety checklists, mental health support, and hazardreporting systems to mitigate risks from unpredictable homeenvironments.4.Prepare for broader claim risksCompensation claims may arisenot just from physical injuries but also psychological ones linked toisolation, stress, or challenges balancing work and home life.Policies should anticipate and address these risks.Page | 23IR Update July 2025'