Some more WTF moments regarding our court system

Jim Goose · 25-09-2012, 04:51 PM

Reading an article today that a cop from WA while away for work purposes interstate was assaulted, failed in his bid to get workers compo....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-2...-fight/4279860

Quote:

Police officer loses assault compensation fight
By court reporter Candice Marcus

Police officer loses legal fight to get assault compensation from the force

An Adelaide police officer who was assaulted while in Queensland for a national counter-terrorism course has lost a South Australian Supreme Court appeal to get employer compensation for his injuries.

The court heard Jason Wheeler was an instructor at a police training course at Mount Isa in April 2009.

While returning to his motel, he was struck with some force to the back of his head and became unconscious.

He had picked up takeaway food on his way back to the motel and had just been at a social gathering at the Mount Isa Police Social Club to mark the end of the training course.

Mr Wheeler succeeded initially in a judicial review in the Workers Compensation Tribunal, but the decision was overturned on appeal by the full bench of the Tribunal.

His employer argued Mr Wheeler was not involved in the training course at the precise time of the assault.

Mr Wheeler appealed to the Supreme Court against that decision.

It unanimously dismissed Mr Wheeler's appeal, ruling the full bench of the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction by making its own factual determinations on the case.

So the supreme court of SA says... he technically wasnt on "duty" so he isnt entitled.... ok... then there was this case in April of a woman WHO GOT COMPO because she got injured WHILE HAVING SEX in a motel room while away for work purposes..

http://www.news.com.au/business/work...-1226333292525

Quote:

Worker injured during sex gets compensation payout

news.com.au
April 19, 2012 1:45PM

A WOMAN who was injured while having sex in her hotel room during a work trip is entitled to compensation.

In the Federal Court today Justice John Nicholas ruled that the woman was injured during her “course of employment”.

The woman’s barrister argued that sex was an “ordinary incident of life” in a hotel room, much like showering and sleeping.

The Judge ruled that “if the applicant had been injured while playing a game of cards in her motel room she would be entitled to compensation” and the fact that the woman was engaged in sexual activity rather than some other lawful recreational activity while in her hotel room does not lead to any different result.

The woman, who cannot be named, challenged the rejection of her workers' compensation claim for facial and psychological injuries suffered when a glass light fitting came away from the wall above the bed as she was having sex in November 2007.

The woman in her late thirties was required to travel to a country town by her employer, the Human Relations Section of the Commonwealth Government agency.

She arranged to meet a male friend there who lived in the town. They went to a restaurant for dinner and at about 10pm or 11pm went back to the woman’s motel room where they had sex that resulted in her injury.

The male friend said in his statement at the time that they were "going hard” and he did not know if they bumped the light or it just fell off.

“I think she was on her back when it happened but I was not paying attention because we are rolling around.”

SERIOUSLY WTF??!!?!??

I hope the cops lawyers do some more research and appeal the decision as clearly the cop is away in "the course of his employment!"

MNM96 · 25-09-2012, 06:31 PM

For the copper to miss out while the second person gets paid out is bizzare! That is without me judging either!!!

That said, Workers Comp rules are very clear. Seems wrong that this occurs however, but he wasn't technically at work, or travelling to and from work.

Seems to me however, if he wasn't in the Isa for this work, he wouldn't have been in the Isa, or got attacked.

Cover the Guys injuries and let him recover as he deserves!

FGII-XR6 · 25-09-2012, 06:52 PM

I read the details about the woman when it was first published. they ruled that she was only at the motel as a result of her work so was on " work related time" by that ruling the cop should be covered all I can think of is different states / territories have different rules. she must have been in the ACT or northern teritory as it was in the federal court

Jim Goose · 25-09-2012, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by au3xr6

I read the details about the woman when it was first published. they ruled that she was only at the motel as a result of her work so was on " work related time" by that ruling the cop should be covered all I can think of is different states / territories have different rules. she must have been in the ACT or northern teritory as it was in the federal court

Yes thats right... they ruled she was on work time... so is the cop... same thing.
He is out of town for work purposes. she was out of town for work purposes.

In the womans case hers was held in a federal supreme court... which means that a precedence is set which should flow down to the state court.

Its the exact same circumstances (though different how it happened)

FGII-XR6 · 25-09-2012, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Yes thats right... they ruled she was on work time... so is the cop... same thing.
He is out of town for work purposes. she was out of town for work purposes.

In the womans case hers was held in a federal supreme court... which means that a precedence is set which should flow down to the state court.

Its the exact same circumstances (though different how it happened)

the only problem is some states have passed legislation to stop these claims. NSW now has ruled out claims on the journey to and from work through legislation.

Jim Goose · 25-09-2012, 07:20 PM

Federal Courts always over rule what the state says....

Pretty sure that the woman involved had appealed to the federal court after the state had knocked her back. Comcare had also appealled the ruling against the woman and lost....

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/n...-1226353551086

In the end her she still won her case.... the states can legislate all it wants.
Pretty silly really if the Federal court system had ruled in favour of her case just 5months ago.

**cs123** · 25-09-2012, 07:30 PM

I'd say the cop wasn't covered as he was socialising. He would have been covered at work, to and from work and at the motel. Same as the woman. I think if the woman was at her boyfriends house then she wouldn't have been covered.

FGII-XR6 · 25-09-2012, 07:32 PM

you could be right there after all her employer paid for the motel room so it could be classed as an extension of the workplace

Quote:

Originally Posted by cs123

I'd say the cop wasn't covered as he was socialising. He would have been covered at work, to and from work and at the motel. Same as the woman. I think if the woman was at her boyfriends house then she wouldn't have been covered.

Franco Cozzo · 25-09-2012, 07:52 PM

I think this comes down to the courts and everyone involved in their workings seem to be in some mystical land where nothing makes sense to anyone but people tripping on acid.

Nova 8 · 25-09-2012, 08:39 PM

If she got pregnant would that be covered too? TBH i dont think either should be covered. Compo is too easy to get.

2011G6E · 25-09-2012, 08:52 PM

As they've said before, there's no such thing as a "justice system", it's more accurately called a "legal system".

When I went to Brisbane for a course related to work, and I was covered by workers comp from the moment I left home to go to the airport until I got back home at the end of the week, 24 hours a day. The simple reason was that I wouldn't have even been down there unless work had sent me, so it was only fair to be covered all the time I was away, whether at the course or not.