When applying the [name withheld] test in interval cases, the relevant 'activity' must be characterised at the level of the employer's encouragement or instruction (e.g., staying awake during a shift change), not at the level of the specific means chosen by the worker to fulfil that instruction (e.g., a fishing trip). An activity falls within the course of employment if it is a reasonable and foreseeable incident of the encouraged undertaking, even if the employer did not specifically authorise or encourage the precise activity that resulted in injury. The employer's knowledge that workers commonly engaged in such activities, combined with the absence of any prohibition, supports a finding of implied encouragement.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.