Journey claim or employment injury? Lessons from Smith v MAIB

For many people, the working day involves travelling between home and a fixed workplace. Other occupations, such as transport, delivery and trade roles, involve frequent travel between worksites. Unfortunately, motor vehicle accidents can occur both during work-related travel and while commuting to or from work.

When a person is injured in a motor vehicle accident, it is important to determine whether the accident occurred in the course of their employment. This will assist in identifying whether the claim falls within the workers compensation scheme or should instead be pursued through the Tasmania’s CTP scheme with the Motor Accidents Insurance Board (MAIB).

Under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, an insurer is entitled to dispute a claim where an injury arises from a ‘journey’ claim, being a non work- related journey pursuant to s25(6). Conversely, under ss 23 and 24 of the Motor Accidents (Liabilities and Compensation) Act 1973, the MAIB may decline to accept a claim if a motor accident occurred in the course of a person’s employment.

This issue was considered in the recent TASCAT decision Smith v Motor Accidents Insurance Board and J Holloway Developments Pty Ltd t/as Joe Holloway Family Trust [2026] TASCAT 40. The Tribunal ultimately found that the accident did not arise out of, or in the course of, the worker’s employment and that the claim fell within the scope of the MAIB statutory benefits scheme. The MAIB had contended that the accident occurred in the course of employment while the employer argued that the claim was a journey claim and therefore fell outside the workers compensation scheme.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered that:

• the worker had finished work for the day when the accident occurred;
• the worker was not required, induced or encouraged to be at a particular place in a period between two discrete periods of actual work;
• the worker was not performing his actual duties at the time of the accident; and
• although the worker had permission to use a work vehicle, that permission was granted solely to collect a personal vehicle and was unrelated to any work duties.

Cases involving work-related travel can present difficult questions regarding the application of the workers compensation and MAIB statutory schemes. As Smith demonstrates, determining whether an accident occurred in the course of employment is often a fact-specific exercise.

While the Tribunal was able to determine the issue on the particular facts of Smith, questions concerning travel to and from work are not always straightforward. For example, where a tradesperson travels directly from home to a job site at the direction of their employer, the distinction between a journey to work and travel in the course of employment may be less clear. Relevant considerations may include the purpose of the travel, the degree of employer direction or control, whether tools or equipment are being transported, and whether the travel forms part of the worker’s duties.

The decision in Smith serves as a useful reminder of the factors the Tribunal may consider when making a determination about whether a motor vehicle accident arose out of or in the course of employment, including:

• whether the worker was performing their employment duties at the time of the accident;
• whether the worker was undertaking an activity they were reasonably required, expected or authorised to perform in carrying out those duties; and
• when, during an interval between periods of work, the worker was engaged in an activity induced or encouraged by the employer.

Practical examples of this include:

• a truck driver travelling between locations as part of their employment duties;
• a tradesperson travelling between work sites at the direction of their employer; and
• a tradesperson travelling directly from home to a work site at the employer’s direction may require closer consideration depending on the circumstances of the travel and its connection to the worker’s duties.

Obtaining information about the worker’s activities, purpose of travel and employment obligations at an early stage can assist in clarifying the circumstances of the accident and determining the appropriate compensation scheme.