Journey to nowhere

Priolo v Return to Work Corporation of South Australia & Anor [2025] SAET 29

What amounts to a ‘journey’ for workers compensation purposes? Does the employee have to travel from one place to another, or could they just be walking around the block?

The South Australian Employment Tribunal provided some clarity on these questions in the recent decision of Priolo v Return to Work Corporation of South Australia & Anor [2025] SAET 29 (4 April 2025).

Background

Ms Priolo, a Pilates instructor, was on her 30-minute walk break between gym classes when she collided with a bicycle whilst crossing the road.

Ms Priolo regularly undertook these walks to keep ‘mentally and physically fresh’, and to try and warm up from the cold temperature in the fitness centre.

Employees were not able to park their cars inside the centre as those spaces were limited and reserved for members. Ms Priolo claimed that she had only crossed the road to retrieve her bag from her parked car at the time of the collision.

Ms Priolo made a workers compensation claim for the injuries she suffered in the incident.The claim was rejected and proceeded to trial before Deputy President Judge Calligeros.

Journey claims

Section 7(8) of the Return to Work Act 2014 (SA) (RTW Act) is a code for journey injuries, and provides that a journey injury will only be compensable if the ‘journey’ is undertaken:

• in the course of carrying out duties of employment; or
• between the worker’s place of residence and place of employment (or an agreed educational institution/medical service) and there is a real and substantial connection between the employment and the journey.

Whilst not teaching a Pilates class at the time of the incident, Ms Priolo claimed the injuries were sustained on a ‘journey’ undertaken in the course of carrying out duties of employment.

In this regard, it was argued that Ms Priolo had obligations including to ensure that she was ready to commence work by keeping mentally and physically fresh between classes.

Return to Work SA argued that Ms Priolo was not on a journey because the walk was only a short distance and was not between two specific points.It was asserted that Ms Priolo was on a break at the time of the incident and was not entitled to compensation.

Decision

Was it a journey?

The South Australian Employment Tribunal concluded that Ms Priolo was on a journey when she went for her short walk between Pilates classes. It was decided that there was no minimum distance requirement to a journey.

Judge Calligeros explained that if a worker resides adjacent to their place of employment, the close proximity of the two places does not prevent the short walk from one place to the other from being a journey.

It was still a journey event though the walk was not from one definite point to another. An ocean cruise which departs from and returns to the same port without stopping along the way can properly be described as a journey, according to the Judge.

Was Ms Priolo’s walk undertaken in the course of carrying out duties of employment?

However, although Ms Priolo was on a journey, his Honour found that it was not undertaken in the course of carrying out duties of employment and therefore the injuries were not covered by the RTW Act.

The Judge relied on the following passage from TransAdelaide v Karanicos [1996] SASC 5536 at paragraph 23:

‘the ordinary meaning of [carrying out duties of employment] suggests that it requires an affirmative answer to the question of whether one would say that in undertaking the journey the worker was performing the worker’s job, complying with an instruction from the employer given by the employer in the exercise of its control as employer, or doing something reasonably incidental to one of those things.’

Appeal

The decision is the subject of an appeal to the Full Bench of the South Australian Employment Tribunal.

Implications

The decision provides important clarification for employers as to what amounts to a ‘journey’:

• The relatively short distance between the place of employment and the location of the injury is not determinative of the question of whether the walk was a ‘journey’
• A journey does not need to include travelling from one specific point to another – a worker instructed to ‘drive around a suburb’ could be on a journey for their employment.

In this instance, the short walk, spanning merely a kilometre in distance, was a journey.

The decision also provides clarification for employers as to when a journey is undertaken in the course of carrying out duties of employment:

• Whilst there were some work related reasons for the journey, going on a walk of your own volition does not bring the activity under a ‘duty of employment’
• It was significant that Ms Priolo was not asked or directed to go on a walk by her employer
• Other options were available at the time to Ms Priolo to stay mentally and physically alert – these did not require her to go for a walk and cross the road.