A landmark legal ruling that initially granted compensation to a council worker who tripped over a puppy gate while working from home has been overturned, setting a crucial precedent for how work-from-home injuries are assessed in Australia.
The Trip That Sparked a Legal Battle
In 2022, Lauren Vercoe, an operations programmer for the City of Charles Sturt in Adelaide's west, broke her arm during her work-from-home day. The accident occurred when she got up from her desk during an authorised break to make a coffee and fell over a 60cm barrier in her sunroom.
She had installed the barrier for a private reason: to keep her rabbit separate from a colleague's puppy she was minding. Her initial compensation claim with ReturnToWorkSA was rejected that same year.
A Shock Win, Then a Successful Appeal
In a surprising 2023 decision, South Australian Employment Tribunal member Jodie Carrel overturned the rejection. Carrel ruled that Vercoe's home was an authorised workplace, making the pet gate a "workplace hazard". The tribunal found the fall happened during a paid break, an activity she would have done in an office, and that the council's ignorance of the gate was irrelevant.
However, the City of Charles Sturt Council, backed by ReturnToWorkSA, appealed. They argued the tribunal failed to properly consider if Vercoe's employment was a "significant contributing cause" of her injury.
Majority Ruling Reshapes WFH Liability
In a majority decision in December 2025, the tribunal's full bench upheld the appeal. President Justice Steven Dolphin and Deputy President Judge Calligeros found that simply working from home was not enough to make the accident work-related.
Calligeros stated that while the fence was physically in her workspace, it "clearly served a private purpose" with "no work-related element involved." The bench also ruled that too much emphasis was placed on the break being authorised, without analysing whether the job itself contributed to the fall.
The case has been sent back to Member Carrel for fresh consideration under the clarified legal tests.
Dissenting View and Industry Impact
In a dissenting opinion, Deputy President Miles Crawley said he would have upheld the original compensation decision. He argued temporary hazards can form part of a workplace even for private purposes, and employers retain a duty to ensure home offices are safe.
Tahlia Melino, principal of Melino Law and counsel for the Local Government Association SA, said this was the first appeal decision on WFH liability. "The original decision caused a lot of concern for employers that it would open the floodgates on work injury claims," she told the Australian Financial Review.
"This decision confirms it’s just not enough to be at home on an authorised break to have a compensable injury," Melino added.
According to her LinkedIn profile, Lauren Vercoe still works at Charles Sturt council. The council declined to comment on the specifics of the ongoing case.
