The shift to hybrid and remote working has become a permanent feature of Australian workplaces.
For HR, WHS, and People & Culture teams, that shift carries a responsibility that does not clock off when employees log in from home, and a recent NSW Personal Injury Commission decision serves as a timely reminder of just how complex working-from-home injury claims can be.
The legal framework: Your duty of care does not stop at the office door
Under Australia’s Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws, employers, referred to as persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs), have a duty to ensure the health and safety of workers so far as is reasonably practicable, regardless of where work is performed. That duty extends to the home environment.
In practice, this means employers must identify and manage both physical hazards, such as inadequate workstations, poor lighting, or slip and trip risks, and psychosocial hazards, such as isolation, excessive workload, or reduced access to support, for employees working remotely.
Employers are also required to maintain workers’ compensation insurance that covers their workers wherever they perform their duties, including from home. The specific entitlements and processes vary between states and territories, but the underlying principle is consistent: work-related injuries sustained at home can give rise to a valid workers’ compensation claim.
A recent case in focus: Yap v Waverley Council [2026] NSWPIC 290
A May 2026 decision of the NSW Personal Injury Commission illustrates both the reach of WFH compensation claims and the critical importance of accurate and verifiable evidence.
The applicant, a senior development officer employed by Waverley Council, sought weekly compensation for a lower back injury she alleged was aggravated during the COVID-19 pandemic while working from home. She claimed that her employer had provided only a laptop, leaving her to work at a non-ergonomic kitchen table with a plastic chair, with no ergonomic guidance or adjustments offered.
The claim failed. Commission Member Burge found that the worker had “plainly misrepresented” her working conditions. The photograph she attached to her statement, purportedly showing an inadequate home office setup, was not the same photograph she had emailed to her employer in early 2020. The earlier photograph produced by the employer showed an office chair, a corner work desk, a keyboard, and two monitors: in short, a well-equipped workstation.
Member Burge found the worker’s evidence unconvincing and evasive, concluding that she had deliberately omitted any reference to the proper workstation in her statement. Without a credible factual foundation, the medical evidence advanced in her favour carried little weight, and the claim was dismissed.
Under NSW law, a worker must establish that their employment was the main contributing factor to the injury, which is a more demanding test than that which previously applied. The decision underscores an important point, even where an injury is genuine, a claim can fail if the evidentiary basis is undermined.
Broader context: Claims are on the rise
The Yap decision is not an isolated event. Australian courts and tribunals have increasingly grappled with WFH injury claims in recent years.
In Lauren Vercoe v Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme [2024] SAET 91, Ms Vercoe successfully claimed compensation after tripping over a puppy fence she had installed in her home office, with the Tribunal finding that her home was her place of employment at the relevant time. Earlier, in Hargreaves v Telstra Corporation Limited [2011] AATA 417, an employer was similarly found liable for an injury sustained in a home-based work environment.
The message from the case law is consistent: employer liability can arise from injuries at home, whether the hazard was employer-created or not.
What this means for your organisation
For HR, WHS, and People & Culture teams, the practical takeaways are clear.
- Document everything. Require employees to complete a WFH workstation assessment before commencing remote work, and retain those records. Preserve any photographs or correspondence relating to home office setups – as Yap illustrates, contemporaneous records can be decisive.
- Respond to employee notifications promptly. If a worker raises concerns about their home workstation or working conditions, respond in writing and document the steps taken. Silence is not a defence.
- Consult on an ongoing basis. WHS obligations include continuing consultation with workers about their working arrangements – not merely a one-off form completed at onboarding.
- Address both physical and psychosocial risks. Ergonomics matter, but so do workload, working hours, isolation, and access to support. A comprehensive WFH risk assessment should cover both dimensions.
- Review your WFH policy. If your policy does not clearly articulate what a compliant home workstation looks like, or what processes apply when an employee’s setup changes, now is the time to update it.
This article provides general information about workers’ compensation and WHS obligations in the context of working from home in Australia. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers with specific concerns about their organisation’s obligations, or about a particular workers’ compensation matter, should seek specialist legal advice.
Authors:
Bridget Bassett-Smith, Legal Counsel – Workplace Legal, Safety & HR
Ashleigh Discipio, Managing Legal Counsel – Workplace Legal, Safety & HR
