A council worker who won compensation after tripping over a puppy gate in her sunroom has seen her bombshell victory overturned, in a landmark ruling on employers’ liability for staff working from home.
Lauren Vercoe, an operations programmer for the City of Charles Sturt in western Adelaide, was working from home in 2022 when she got up to make a coffee and broke her arm after tripping over a 60cm barrier she had set up to keep her rabbit away from a colleague’s puppy she was caring for.
Her initial claim against the Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme was rejected in October of the same year.
But in October 2023, Auxiliary Deputy President Jodie Carrel of the South Australian Employment Tribunal found the injury worthy of compensation because Ms Vercoe’s home was her authorised workplace, thus making the pet fence a ‘workplace hazard’.
Ms Carrel determined the fall occurred during an authorised paid break, something the council worker ‘would have done had she been working in the office’.
She said the fact the council did not know about the fence was irrelevant, noting the scheme does not exclude hazards that were not installed or approved by an employer.
The council, supported by ReturnToWorkSA, appealed that decision, arguing Ms Carrel wrongly deemed the injury as work-related without assessing whether employment was a ‘significant contributing cause’.
In a majority decision, the tribunal has upheld the appeal, ruling that working from home was not in itself enough to make the injury work‑related.
Council worker Lauren Vercoe (pictured) broke her arm while working from home after tripping over a puppy gate while working from home
City of Charles Sturt operations programmer Lauren Vercoe was working remotely in 2022 when she stood up to make a coffee and broke her arm (the council building is pictured)
In a majority ruling, President Justice Steven Dolphin and Deputy President Judge Calligeros agreed, finding Ms Carrel had conflated the two legal tests.
Mr Calligeros said while the fence formed part of Ms Vercoe’s workplace ‘on the day in question’, it undeniably had a private purpose, protecting her rabbit from the puppy, and said ‘there was no work‑related element involved in that’.
He also said Ms Carrel placed too much weight on the break being authorised, without assessing whether employment significantly contributed to the injury.
The case has now been sent back to Ms Carrel for re-determination.
In a dissenting judgment, Deputy President Miles Crawley would have upheld the original decision, arguing temporary hazards remain workplace features even if they serve a private purpose.
He said employers still retain a duty to ensure the workplace, including a home office, is free of dangers.
The case comes amid a series of contentious rulings linked to the rise of remote work, including one where a worker won compensation after being attacked by a dog in their backyard while working from home.
In the largely uncharted space of work-from-home accidents, the decision could set a precedent excluding private hazards in remote workers’ homes from employers liability.
Ms Vercoe’s husband (pictured) rang an ambulance and she was taken to Royal Adelaide Hospital where she was treated for a fractured arm, a suspected dislocated shoulder and a painful right knee before being discharged later that day
Judges found the fence’s private purpose shattered any link between the mishap and her job, setting a precedent that could redefine remote work injury claims nationwide.
A federal review of Comcare, delivered last week, recommended issuing clearer guidelines on work‑related versus non‑work‑related activities during WFH breaks.
However, it rejected calls from employers to exclude domestic tasks such as chores or school pick‑ups from coverage, and dismissed claims that employers lack control over home‑based work environments.
Despite a significant increase in the volume of people working from home since the Covid lockdowns, there remains ‘very limited’ guidance material to assist employers to ensure home offices are safe.
Melino Law principal Tahlia Melino, who ran the appeal for the Local Government Association SA, said the decision was the first appeal ruling on WFH liability.
‘The original decision caused a lot of concern for employers that it would open the floodgates on work injury claims as well as for workers concerned it would lead them being driven back into the workplace,’ she told the AFR.
‘This decision confirms it’s just not enough to be at home on an authorised break to have a compensable injury.’
