Injury at home, no liability: A reversal of the ‘puppy pet fence decision’

The South Australian Employment Tribunal’s (Tribunal) decision of Lauren Vercoe v Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme(first instance decision) has recently been overturned. 

On behalf of Ms Vercoe’s employer, City of Charles Sturt (Council), the Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme (the Scheme) for appealed the first instance decision on a question of law, submitting the Tribunal had erred when considering section 7(2) of the Return to Work Act 2024 (SA) (RTW Act). 

In Local Government Association (City of Charles Sturt) v Vercoe & Return to Work Corporation of South Australia [2025] SAET 135 – the Tribunal, by majority decision, did not find that Ms Vercoe’s employment was a significant contributing cause of her injury. 

This decision gives some insight into how tribunals will assess an employer’s liability in relation to domestic hazards arising in relation to work-from-home arrangements, when the test for liability requires the employment to be a significant contributing cause of the injury. 

First instance decision

Ms Vercoe was employed by the Council and had prior approval work from home. On the day of the incident, she was working from home as she was looking after a colleague’s puppy. She was taking a short coffee break when she tripped and fell over a metal “pet fence” that she had erected (for the purposes of keeping her pet rabbit away from the puppy whilst working) suffering a right knee and shoulder injury.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that Ms Lauren Vercoe's injuries, sustained while working from home, arose out of her employment:

• The Tribunal found that Ms Vercoe met section 7(5)(b) of the RTW Act on the basis that she took an authorised break from work, and the Council had encouraged employees, including her, to take regular coffee breaks. 
• The Tribunal also accepted that Ms Vercoe falling on her way to make a coffee during the course of an authorised break, satisfied the first limb of section 7(2)(a) of the RTW Act in that the pet fence was a feature of her place of employment in the management of her colleague’s dog. 

Appeal

The Scheme appealed the first instance decision on the basis that the Tribunal had erred in its consideration and application of section 7(2) of the RTW Act. 

The Scheme contended the first instance decision failed to properly consider both elements of section 7(2)(a), specifically whether:

• The injuries arose out of or in the course of employment; and 

• The employment was a significant contributing cause of her injuries,

  so that the Tribunal was in error by equating that a private domestic hazard had a meaningful connection to her employment.   

Outcome of appeal

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for reconsideration.  The Tribunal, in a majority decision, held that the first instance decision placed disproportionate weight on:

• The classification of her going to make coffee an “authorised break” without considering the temporal or causal connection to her employment under the second limb of section 7(2)(a) of the RTW Act, and
• The “pet fence” being a characteristic of the place of employment.

The Tribunal emphasised that satisfying the above provisions does not automatically establish that employment was a significant contributing cause of the injury.

The Tribunal also distinguished earlier decisions such as Sorn v Return to Work Corporation of SA & Anorand Smith v Australian Woolen Mills Ltd:

• In both these cases, the workers became unwell and passed out at their workplaces, during work, but for reasons unrelated to their employment. 
• Their injuries were found to have arisen from employment because their falls brought them into contact with a characteristic feature of the workplace that was responsible for the nature of the injuries they sustained.

In contrast, with respect to Ms Vercoe’s incident and injuries, the Tribunal said that the “pet fence” was:

• Not “peculiar” to Ms Vercoe’s work or occupation,
• Installed for purely a private purpose (erected to keep Ms Vercoe’s pet rabbit safe from the puppy she was minding), and 
• A hazard commonly encountered in domestic life (as opposed to something encountered during employment). 

Overall, the Tribunal was not satisfied that that Ms Vercoe’s employment was a significant contributing cause of injury and it remitted the matter so that the second limb of the statutory test in section 7 of the RTW Act could be properly applied.

Dissenting view

In dissent to the majority, His Honour Deputy President Crawley considered that the “pet fence” was a characteristic of the workplace at the time of injury, regardless that it was temporary or a private nature. His Honour said it was sufficient that the hazard was encountered by the worker whilst carrying out their employment at their place of employment during an authorised break.  Hs Honour reasoned that employers’ duties to provide safe workplaces are not confined to hazards created for work purposes and that the first instance decision correctly applied the statutory test to the facts as found.

Key takeaways for employers in WA

Employers have substantial health and safety obligations to their employees. These obligations continue to operate when employees are working from home remotely, and it follows that employers might be liable to pay compensation if workers are injured during the course of their employment at home. 

While this SAET appeal decision does not directly affect claims made in the workers compensation scheme in Western Australia, it demonstrates that there is a limit to that scope of liability and provides useful guidance for assessing liability when liability does not just require a temporal connection between the occurrence of the injury or contraction of disease and employment, but also requires the employment to be a significant contributing cause.  For example, in WA, diseases are only compensable if the employment is shown to be a significant contributing cause to the contraction or aggravation, exacerbation or acceleration of the disease. 

It highlights that personal or domestic hazards and risks unrelated to an approved work-from-home arrangement may be significant factors that might result in a finding that an injury was not significantly contributed to by employment. 

Employers should nevertheless be wary that working from home arrangements do carry risk, and a prudent employer should review their approach to working from home and applicable arrangements to eliminate risks posed by remote working including: 

• Identifying occupational hazards that may arise when from working from home, including any trip or domestic hazards, and document these hazards together with the employee to mitigate any safety concerns or risks of harm. 
• Reinforcing robust work-from-home policies and procedures with employees to manage health and safety risks.  

This article was written by, Sara Stamenkovic, Restricted Practitioner Insurance.

Please contact our team should you wish to discuss the implications of this update further. 

1. ^

   Lauren Vercoe v Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme [2024] SAET 91.

2. ^

   Sorn v Work Corporation of SA & Anor [2025] SAET 31.

3. ^

   Smith v Australian Woollen Mills Ltd [1933] HCA 60.

4. ^

   It is worth noting that because the Tribunal found (or did not overturn the finding) that the worker had sustained an injury that arises out of or in the course of employment, and only the second limb of the test in section 7(2)(a) of the RTW Act was not established, that would be sufficient to ground liability to pay compensation for a personal injury by accident in WA, which does not necessarily require the employment to be a contributing cause and often only requires a temporal connection between employment and the injury.