The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on a question of law, holding that the Magistrate's finding that a security guard's injury sustained in a public car park while walking to his workplace did not arise 'in the course of employment' was open on the evidence. The Court held that an employer merely conveying information about available public parking options — prepared by a third party and available to the general public on the same terms — does not amount to authorisation, encouragement, or expectation that employees use that car park in the Henderson sense, and does not establish the requisite nexus between the activity and the employee's actual duties. The finding that the email providing parking information was distinguishable from a direction, encouragement, or authorisation to travel by car was a factual conclusion open to the Magistrate, and the appellant could not clear the high hurdle of demonstrating the Magistrate was bound to draw the contrary inferences contended for.
The full text is available to signed-in members.