By Honest Grace Legal | Workers’ Compensation Law | Oct 2025
This case summary reviews Stockwell v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 100, a Queensland Industrial Relations Commission decision concerning workers’ compensation, pre-shift injury, bathroom facilities, whether an injury occurred in the course of employment, and whether employment was a significant contributing factor under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).
Case Subject
Pre-shift bathroom trip injury held to be compensable: Stockwell v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 100
Background: What Happened in Stockwell v Workers’ Compensation Regulator
Ms Paula Stockwell was a part-time showroom consultant at Kitchen Connections’ Homeworld. The store opened at 9.00 am; staff had no restroom on site and were expected to use the shopping centre’s public toilets.
On 15 December 2021 at about 8.45 am, after entering the showroom and beginning her usual prestart preparations, the Plaintiff walked to the centre toilets and slipped on a puddle in a rear laneway on the way to “Bathroom B,” falling and injuring her left knee with additional facial and shoulder impact.
Work Cover Queensland at first instance rejected her claim with the Regulator confirming the rejection. This decision was appealed to the QIRC.
Key Legal Issues in the Workers’ Compensation Appeal
- Whether the injury arose out of, or in the course of, employment and whether employment was a significant contributing factor to the subject injuries.
- Alternative contentions (ultimately unnecessary given the Court’s conclusion on s 32): whether s 34(1)(a)–(b) applied (injury “at or after” attending the place of employment) and whether s 35(1)(a) applied (journey between home and work).
- Facts of dispute: Whether it was the employer’s expectation that staff arrive early, so they were ready to serve at 9.00 am. Further, whether a pre-shift toilet visit is deemed incidental to employment?
What the QIRC Decided
- Appeal allowed.
- Regulator’s decision (3 June 2022) set aside.
- Stockwell’s application for compensation was accepted under the WCRA.
- Regulator to pay Ms Stockwell’s costs of the hearing (to be agreed or on further application).
Key Findings on Pre-Shift Injury, Bathroom Facilities and Employment Connection
- Prestart preparation within a reasonable time is “in the course of employment.” The Commission found a workplace expectation - confirmed by the showroom manager - that consultants arrive 10–15 minutes early to be customer ready at 9.00 am.
- Going to the bathroom is incidental to employment. The Commission relied on longstanding authority that allowances are made for the “ordinary habits of human nature,” and that relieving the “necessities of nature” on the employer’s premises (or in required facilities) occurs in the course of employment.
- Employment was a significant contributing factor. Because the employer did not provide onsite toilets, employees were required to use shoppingcentre facilities; Ms Stockwell’s employment brought her to the laneway where the puddle presented a locality risk, satisfying the causality in s 32(1).
- Journey provision inapplicable. Her journey ended when she entered the showroom and began preparing for work; s 35 did not apply.
Outcome of the Appeal
- Expectation to be work ready at opening: The Commission preferred Ms Buono’s (store manager) evidence over the Regulator’s broader management witnesses, finding a real expectation that consultants arrive early and complete preparatory tasks (login, badge, put lunch away, and—if needed—use the toilet) before 9.00 am. Even the State Manager ultimately conceded that a worker who routinely arrived at 9.00 am and then took 15 minutes to get ready would be “late,” supporting the expectation to be ready at opening.
- Reasonable pre-shift window: Applying authorities such as Mayne, a worker’s employment can commence when they attend the workplace within a reasonable timeto prepare for work; Ms Stockwell’s 8.45 am attendance met that standard.
- Incidental activity: A toilet visit is an activity incidental to the work and within the course of employment.
- Causation - significant contributing factor: The injury occurred because the employment required traversing the laneway to access the required amenities; her employment placed her in the dangerous location (the puddle), satisfying the “significant contributing factor” element under s 32(1).
- No journey claim: Having commenced prestart preparations inside the showroom, she was no longer on a journey between home and work; s 35 could not assist.
Why This Workers’ Compensation Case Matters
- Queensland workers’ compensation: Employees injured before their rostered start may still be “in the course of employment” when reasonably preparing to be workready - including using required external amenities.
- Amenity access risks: Where an employer lacks onsite facilities and requires staff to use public amenities, hazards on the necessary route can render employment a significant contributing factor under s 32(1).
- Practical takeaway: Employers should recognise that pre-shift, on premises preparations (like a toilet break to be ready at opening) can attract coverage; journey provisions will not apply once the worker has entered the workplace and begun preparations.