The substitution of 'authorized recess' for 'ordinary recess' in s.83(1)(a) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) did not broaden the meaning of 'recess'. A 'recess' retains its essential character as a relatively brief interruption in an otherwise continuous period of work, importing elements of brevity, periodicity and suspension of activity. A break between distinct periods of work — where the worker has ceased one period of work and is awaiting commencement of another — is not a 'recess' even if the absence is authorized by the employer. The question left open is the precise interaction between the deeming provisions of s.83 and the 'significant contributing factor' requirement in s.82(2), though the court indicated that the deeming fiction comprehends that the worker's activities are carried out as part of employment.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.