Case Summary - Sorn v Work Corporation of SA & Anor [2025] SAET 31

Thursday 22 May 2025

Ground floor, 31 Franklin Street
Adelaide SA 5000
Telephone: 08 7093 2350
mail@melinolegal.com.au

www.melinolegal.com.au
Melino Legal Pty Ltd
ABN 53 659 301 9

Sorn v Work Corporation of South Australia & Anor [2025] SAET 31

Delivered 11 April

This case involves the application of the significant contributing cause provision pursuant to section 7(2)(a) of the Return to Work Act 2014 (the Act).

Background
The applicant, Mr Jamey Sorn, is employed by Hardkou Pty Ltd trading as Subway Meats.
During an authorised break on 6 February 2024, Mr Sorn ate some food which later caused him symptoms consistent with that of food poisoning or an allergic reaction. Mr Sorn notified his manager, Mr Markou, that he was feeling unwell. Mr Markou told Mr Sorn to sit in the lunchroom to see if his symptoms subsided.

Thereafter, Mr Markou checked on Mr Sorn who informed him that he was not feeling any better. Mr Markou told him that he would take him to the doctor. Mr Markou left to get his belongings to take Mr Sorn. During this time, Mr Sorn started to walk to Mr Markou’s car, whilst standing at the top of a flight of steel stairs, Mr Sorn lost consciousness, fell and fractured his C1 vertebra, giving rise to his claim for compensation.

The respondent accepted that the injury arose in the course of Mr Sorn’s employment. In issue was whether Mr Sorn’s employment was a significant contributing cause of the injury.

Submissions
Applicant Submissions
Counsel for Mr Sorn submitted that the stairs were a characteristic of the workplace and the primary cause of the injury. Counsel acknowledged that Mr Sorn’s symptoms and fainting were also causative but did not prevent the stairs from being a significant cause. Counsel submitted that Mr Markou had authorised a break in employment in telling Mr Sorn he would take him to see a doctor. Further, that Mr Sorn had been required to descend the stairs to get to Mr Markou’s car.
Respondent Submissions
Counsel for the respondent submitted that there was a high degree of uncertainty about what Mr Sorn was doing at the time of the fall, it was submitted that Mr Sorn was going downstairs for purposes other than to go to Mr Markou’s car such as to wash his face as provided in a medical note. It was further submitted that the legislation regarding the word “significant” requires stringent causal requirements that injury must have arisen from Mr Sorn’s employment and that these were not satisfied.

Decision
His Honour Deputy President Judge Calligeros was satisfied that Mr Sorn’s main purpose for descending the stairs was to go to Mr Markou’s car to be taken to see a doctor. He did not accept Counsel’s submissions that he was going downstairs for another purpose altered his main purpose.

His Honour considered the medical evidence that he would not have sustained these injuries had he not been standing at the top of a steel flight of stairs. Whilst His Honour acknowledged that Mr Sorn’s symptoms may be the primary or most influential cause of his injury, he was satisfied that the medical evidence relating to causation was clear that the stairs caused Mr Sorn’s injury.

His Honour accepted the applicant’s submission that the physical nature of the stairs are a characteristic of Mr Sorn’s place of employment and a significant cause of Mr Sorn’s injury. On this basis, His Honour was satisfied that Mr Sorn’s claim should succeed.

His Honour set aside the rejection of Mr Sorn’s claim and substituted it with an Order confirming the C1 vertebral fracture was a work injury.

Disclaimer: this does not constitute legal advice and we do not represent it to be legal advice. If you seek advice, please contact us on 7093 2350 or mail@melinolegal.com.au