Singh v SecureCorp [2025] VMC 2

Link to decision Link to video

Key takeaways

The Victorian Magistrates Court has held that a worker’s injury, which occurred during a brief walk from a public car park to the worksite, was not compensable due to insufficient connection between the worker’s activities at the time of injury and his employment.

Brief facts

The worker, Mr Singh, was a security guard employed by SecureCorp (the employer), a company providing security and staffing at major events.

Mr Singh was regularly stationed to work at the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) for sporting events.
On 27 May 2023, the worker was rostered to work a shift at the MCG, specifically at the player change rooms inside the venue.

The employer usually sent employees an email before their shifts advising which gates were open at the public Yarra Park car park, located near the MCG. However, the employer did not own the car park, provide discounts to park there, or reimburse parking fees.

Mr Singh typically travelled to his MCG shifts either by car or public transport. On 28 May 2023, he was driven to work by a co-worker, who parked at the Yarra Park car park. While walking from the car through the Yarra Park grasslands towards the MCG, Mr Singh slipped and his left knee struck the ground. He suffered injuries to his left leg and knee, as well as a subsequent psychological condition.

The injury occurred before Mr Singh had signed on for his shift or arrived at his designated work location. On 12 June 2023 he lodged a claim for workers’ compensation, alleging that his injuries were sustained in the course of his employment.

On 13 June 2023, Allianz Australia Workers’ Compensation (Allianz) rejected the claim on the basis that the injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment. In their decision letter, they noted that the worker had walked around 500 metres from the car before falling, and then stood up and continued to walk to the MCG. It also noted that he had not started his shift when the injury occurred.

Allianz also referred to section 46(2) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (the Act) and stated that travelling for the purpose of employment did not include travelling to and from a worker’s place of employment. The worker disputed the decision and issued proceedings in the Victorian Magistrates Court.

Judgment

The Court ruled against the worker, finding his injury non-compensable, as it lacked sufficient connection between the activity causing the injury (walking through the park) and his employment. The Court’s reasoning included the following key factors:

• The injury occurred in a public area, which was not part of the employer’s premises (or even adjacent to it), or under their control.
• Mr Singh was not directed or required to drive to or park in the Yarra Park car park.
• Employees paid public fees for parking, further supporting the lack of a specific arrangement.
• The worker had alternative walking routes available to him to reach his workplace.
• The injury occurred before the worker had signed on for his shift and before he arrived at his specific designated work location (the player change rooms at the MCG).

Ultimately, the court found that for an activity to be considered ‘incidental’ to employment, it needed a more direct connection to the work or service being performed. Walking through a park from a public car park, as part of the commute to work, did not suffice. The court distinguished this case from others where small factual differences had led to successful claims - for instance, where employees needed to use a specific route to work, where a specific car park was designated for employees, or where the injury occurred close to the sign-in point or entry to the worksite. The specific facts in this instance did not support a finding that employment was a significant contributing factor to the injury.

Implications

The court’s decision in Singh provides valuable guidance for employers and insurers regarding the limits of workers compensation liability, particularly concerning injuries occurring during an employee’s commute, in car parks, or in public areas near the workplace.

The case reinforces the assumption that an injury sustained during an ordinary commute to or from work is generally not considered to be ‘in the course of employment’. There needs to be a clear ‘nexus’ (connection) between the injury-causing activity and the actual work duties. It also emphasises that injuries sustained in a public space, without the employer directing a worker to be there or at least exercising some control, will generally not be covered by workers compensation.

Importantly, the decision allows employers to focus their safety management systems and resources on areas within their control, where they have a clear duty of care.

The judgment also highlights the importance of thorough, fact-specific investigations for each claim, as small factual elements (like the employer’s directions, their level of control over an area, or whether an employee had already signed on) can significantly impact liability.