Findings in the Ward case

Having made the distinction between work related and non work-related links in assault cases, the Court found:

“The present case seems to me to be somewhere near the dividing line but nevertheless one in which I think the worker's conduct in turning the boiler room floor into a urinal was improper and of a type likely to arouse resentment on the part of the boiler attendant, and that, therefore, the worker cannot be said to have been injured in the course of his employment.”

It would seem that potentially, the expected outcome of an action resulting in assault is a major factor in deciding whether there are employment links.

In the 'CLEARLY IN' case, the worker could not have reasonably expected that someone would assault him despite his precautions to make some effort to disguise his actions.

However, in the 'CLEARLY OUT' case, it is not unreasonable to assume that the worker would have been assaulted following his actions.

Source URL: https://clik.dva.gov.au/military-compensation-reference-library/historical-information/comcare-operations-manual/volume-five-complex-liability/part-two-injury/work-and-ordinary-recesses/fighting-work/findings-ward-case