ARTICLE
5 September 2016

Punch-up in course of a driver's employment BUT employer not required to compensate

CG
Cooper Grace Ward

Contributor

Established in 1980, Cooper Grace Ward is a leading independent law firm in Brisbane with over 20 partners and 200 team members. They offer a wide range of commercial legal services with a focus on corporate, commercial, property, litigation, insurance, tax, and family law. Their specialized team works across various industries, providing exceptional client service and fostering a strong team culture.
Although injuries were found to be sustained in the course of employment, the employee was not entitled to compensation.
Australia Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

A recent case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal shows that, even when injuries are found to have been sustained in the course of employment, an employee can have no entitlement to compensation.

The plaintiff was employed by Linfox Australia Pty Ltd as a tanker driver.

While delivering a tanker load of fuel, he became involved in a couple's domestic dispute at a service station. This escalated when the husband punched the plaintiff in the face and a fight ensued.

There was evidence that the plaintiff did not initiate the fight. However, he did retaliate to the husband's aggressive advances in a manner that escalated rather than diffused the situation.

The plaintiff sustained a knee injury and facial injuries and claimed compensation from his employer.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal found that the plaintiff's injuries were sustained in the course of his employment as the injuries were sustained while he was engaged in work he was employed to do. In doing that work, it was foreseeable he would come into contact with members of the public. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not initiate the fight, so his behaviour was not enough to take it out of the realm of 'within the course of' his employment.

The Tribunal also commented that this was not a case where an incident occurred in an interval or interlude of employment. The plaintiff's employment duties could not be divided into discrete tasks such that anything in between was an interval. Rather, the tasks needed to be considered as part of his overall employment duties as a tanker driver. In light of this, the Tribunal found that the fight occurred while the plaintiff was engaged in his employment duties.

Despite this, the Tribunal found that the plaintiff, in provoking the husband, voluntarily and unreasonably submitted himself to an abnormal risk of injury and, accordingly, the employer was able to deny compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth).

Click here to read the full decision

Winner – EOWA Employer of Choice for Women Citation 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012
Winner – ALB Gold Employer of Choice 2011 and 2012
Finalist – ALB Australasian Law Awards 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012 (Best Brisbane Firm)
Winner – BRW Client Choice Awards 2009 and 2010 - Best Australian Law Firm (revenue less than $50m)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More