Why Was It Necessary To Go To The High Court For Some Common Sense?

Late last year, I wrote about a workplace injury claim in which the full bench of the Federal Court awarded a public servant compensation for an injury incurred while having sex in her motel room during a work trip.

Initially refused by workplace insurer Comcare, this speculative claim had been to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, then twice to the Federal Court. Now, finally, the High Court has rejected the claim.

It only took six years and hundreds of thousands of dollars of OUR money, but these factors have little relevance to bureaucrats on the public teat.

How could this matter have been allowed to go all the way to the High Court? Comcare have done nothing wrong: they had to appeal the matter because the Federal Court had set a ridiculous and potentially very expensive precedent.

Why did it take all this time and money to find a set of judges with the common sense to say what almost all citizens expect the law to be?

"In order for an injury sustained in an interval or interlude during an overall period of work to be in the course of an employee's employment, the circumstances in which the employee was injured must be connected to an inducement or encouragement by the employer. If the employee is injured whilst engaged in an activity at a certain place, that connection does not exist merely because of an inducement or encouragement to be at that place.”

Exactly. Only acts necessary to the proper performance of your job are induced by your employer. Having sex is not one of them. Neither is playing cards, Justice Bozo of the Federal Court.

It's all very well to argue that this case tests the distinction between work related and personal activities and that the High Court is the best instution to rule on this. It probably is, however this matter should have been clear cut and the Federal Court should have been able to be trusted to set the correct precedent. Amazingly, even the High Court's ruling was not unanimous.

A significant amount of taxpayers’ money has been wasted on this matter. There now needs to be a reckoning on our behalf.

Firstly, the Federal Court ruling is incompetent and clearly at odds with public expectations. These judges deserve to be censured.

How was this woman able to appeal to the Federal Court in the first place? I doubt she was funding it herself.

A no win, no fee legal firm? Perhaps. If this were the case, they and the plaintiff should be jointly and severally liable for costs for such an obviously frivolous and speculative claim, funded as it would have been by a bunch of lawyers on the make.

More likely, the plaintiff obtained legal aid. If this occurred, whoever at Legal Aid wasted scarce funding on this matter should be sacked. This is not why taxpayers agree to fund some citizens’ legal actions.

Lastly, with the matter decided, the ban on publishing the woman’s name should be lifted. Her claim is clearly meretricious. Taxpayers have a right to know who has tried to rip us off. If the publicity discourages similar, future claims, all the better. Proven grifters should not be allowed to maintain a cloak of anonymity.