Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Aussie Girls Know all the Words to Songs By Chaka Khan.

It would be very easy to see this as a “funny” and dismiss it. It is not. It is deathly serious.

I sound like Professor Snape.

Anyhows this is the story…

An Australian civil servant has lost a bid for compensation for an injury incurred while she was having sex during a work trip.

The woman was injured when a light fitting fell on her and a colleague while they were having sex in a motel.

The claimant initially won compensation from government insurer Comcare.

But the High Court overruled that judgement, saying the woman’s employer had not encouraged her to engage in the activity that led to the injury.

Final ruling

The woman says she suffered damage to her nose, mouth and a tooth and psychological trauma after the light fitting was pulled from its mount.

But after a lengthy legal battle, four of the High Court judges ruled against the woman, with one judge dissenting.

“When the circumstances of an injury involve the employee engaging in an activity at the time of the injury, the relevant question is: did the employer induce or encourage the employee to engage in that activity?” the court said.

“On the facts of the respondent’s case, the majority held that the answer to that question was ‘no’.”

The woman, who has not been named, has no further right to appeal.

And neither should she. That this got to the High Court rather than was laughed out of it is astounding. I have worked for gubbermunt at times and had sex and like whatever! What I do on my own dial is my job. What I do on the government is there’s. I once had rampant sex in a motel in the Florida pan-handle whilst watching “Grease 2″ If the candelabra had collapsed during the proceedings then…

OK, the BBC story carries two incompatible facts (and this is important which is why I bolded them). Either the light fitting fell out during this sexual escapade and then it perhaps ought to be the motel on the hook for the compensation or it was “pulled out” which means the motel ought to be be claiming from these two sorts for wrecking the room by swinging (literally) or something. What it has to do with the government is beyond me. And that one judge ruled the other way makes me despair.

Seriously this is a civil case involving either injury due to a poorly maintained motel or sexual antics that damaged that motel. God alone knows what it has to do with the gubbermunt!

And it is Gorton Girls who know all the words to songs by Chaka Khan. The graffiti is all over SE Manchester. Ever been to Gorton?

Don’t.

19 Comments

  1. David says:

    For Fucketty Fucks Sake

  2. First rule of Bondage, make sure your equipment is safe!

    Obviously the light fitting had too few screws.

  3. John Galt says:

    Remember – The safety word is Banana

  4. NickM says:

    And the password is swordfish ;-)

    I suspect Furor that rather more than the fitting had some screws loose…

  5. John Galt says:

    If she thought she could try to claim this from her employer AND get away with it AND not be the subject of ridicule, then she has more than a screw loose, she had an entire toolbox loose.

  6. RAB says:

    Heh! you two.

    What I couldn’t figure is how this ever got within sniffing distance of a bona fide court let alone an initial judgement in her favour. Then I checked out Comcare…

    http://www.comcare.gov.au/

    Then all became clear!

  7. John Galt says:

    What’s your point?

    Is http://www.hse.gov.uk/ any better?

    Could you say the same wouldn’t happen in the UK? I’m not sure I could…

  8. RAB says:

    My point is that it didn’t reach a proper court until the High Court appeal.If it had, hopefully it would have been laughed out the door in an instant.

    Yes of course the same would happen here if you went via a tribunal set up with complete plaintiff bias as it’s default position.

  9. John Galt says:

    Isn’t that the whole purpose of the tribunals system? To deal with issues like this which are specialist (and therefore should be dealt with properly, more quickly) without blocking up the courts system.

    Why should Australia be any different to the UK in that respect?

    We do pretty much the same thing in the UK with various issues such as tax and immigration:

    1. First Tier Tribunal
    2. Upper Tribunal
    3. Court of Appeal
    4. Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

    So you get two bites of the cherry at Tribunal level before it goes before a court, even then it is subject to gaining the permission of the courts to hear the appeal. Equally UK tribunals have an in-built bias against employers and companies.

    http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/hmcts/tribunals

  10. RAB says:

    Isn’t that the whole purpose of the tribunals system?

    Heh, heh, heh…

    Well yes, just like the Family Courts are all about protecting families from illegal intrusions of the State, and not covering up the incompetence of Social workers, “expert” witnesses who earn all their living from such courts, easily influenced fourth rate judges and the Police…

    And if you believe any of that then as Paul Marks says often… I have this nice little bridge here to sell you….

  11. John Galt says:

    I’m not saying it’s good, bad or indifferent as we’ve seen the monumental travesties of the family courts, the court of protection, etc.

    All I am saying is that in approach, the Australian system seems no different to the current UK one, i.e. equally vulnerable to the inbuilt bias of tribunals.

  12. RAB says:

    Um… So am I. Do we have a crossed line here somewhere?

  13. Paul Marks says:

    The law has been (and is being) corrupted Nick.

    I am surprised (given the state of the education in jurisprudence) that this women did not win her case.

    “There was an injury on work time – the employer [in this case the taxpayer] has DEEP POCKETS”.

    That would have been enough for many modern courts.

    Harm has occurred – the employer has money.

    Why have to prove that it was the fault of the employer?

    They (many modern judges) really do think at that scumbag level – they are taught to.

    “Someone has to bear the loss – why not the party with DEEP POCKETS?

  14. RAB says:

    Quite right Paul, it has been creeping up on us for years. There is no such thing as an accident anymore, SOMEONE must be to blame. Indeed the word accident has been expunged from the Highway Code for starters. Did you know that in an accident involving an insured motorist and an uninsured pedestrian or cyclist, that the motorist is always made to pay, even if the incident was entirely the fault of the walker or cyclist. The concept of Contributary Negligence has disappeared down the memory hole of English Law it seems.

  15. Yes RAB English tort law is following American tort law (and this is not good).

    I hope the work on your home is going well.

  16. John Galt says:

    Don’t forget the rise of no-win,no-fee lawyers, which has meant that there are no longer any barriers preventing the underclass filing spurious lawsuits left, right and centre over non-existent or trivial slights. This especially includes prisoners who have been using claims against HM Prison Service as an additional source of income to such a point that it has become a pastime for those with the right combination of street smarts and vindictiveness.

    There is no longer any downside to this as if they win they get 60% of the value of the claim and if they lose it costs them nothing, the costs being picked up by the ambulance chasing lawyer and/or their insurers.

    Theoretically the register of vexatious litigants should stop people doing this but as you can see from the link there are only a couple of hundred listed and I think that the scope of the problem is much, much larger.

    Companies don’t want to get involved in litigation as they always enter the court with the deepest pockets and that has now become the key to whether the court will find against them or not, regardless of the merits of the case. Thus the very threat of court action, even where the blame is on the claimant, results in a negotiated settlement to avoid costs.

    Even though I can’t stand Alan Sugar he was right to defend his position against Stella English and it would have been an outrage (albeit probably not a surprising one) if he had lost (LINK)

    As the adverts say “Where there’s a blame, there’s a claim!”

  17. Yes John there were warnings about “no win, no fee” at the time – and (to my later shame) I did not believe the warnings.

  18. Tim Newman says:

    Ever been to Gorton?

    Many times. Your advice is sound.

  19. umbongo says:

    “As the adverts say “Where there’s a blame, there’s a claim!””

    In the music industry – and show-biz generally – there’s an analogous saying: “where there’s a hit, there’s a writ”.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: