Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Avani Terraces - Greenway
Life is looking up

Compo shagger off to the High Court

By johnboy - 13 May 2013 50

The ABC over the weekend had the thrilling news that the world famous public servant who injured herself having sex on a work trip and claimed compo is having her payment challenged in the highest court in the land:

Comcare initially allowed the claim, but then reversed the decision.

After a long legal battle, the full bench of the Federal Court eventually ruled the woman was entitled to the claim because she was injured at accommodation where her employer had encouraged her to stay.

Comcare is challenging that, asking the High Court to clarify whether the Federal Court’s ruling was sufficient in determining what falls within the course of employment.

Now everyone who likes a bedroom romp should be hoping the High Court rules for Comcare. Otherwise your personal life will be getting a lot more employer regulation.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
50 Responses to
Compo shagger off to the High Court
switch 4:24 pm 13 May 13

Dilandach said :

Oh well, if they don’t win then I guess hotels will need their rooms to be certified to be safe for sexual intercourse. They’d have to test the bed, the wall, the shower, the carpet near the door that has a little gap under it so everyone in the hallway can hear, up against the window and probably the bench that the TV sits on.

Nice work, if you can get it.

MERC600 4:15 pm 13 May 13

RadioVK said :

Dilandach said :

RadioVK said :

I don’t see what the big deal is.

Should public servants be forced to sit quietly in their hotel rooms when away on business and not engaged directly in work related activities?

“work related activities” ??

Please advise where on earth you work that management consider ‘gettin it on’ is a work related activity. Must be a swinggin office.

chewy14 4:13 pm 13 May 13

RadioVK said :

Dilandach said :

RadioVK said :

I don’t see what the big deal is.

If she’d slipped in the shower of the hotel room and injured herself, Comcare would have paid out the claim without all the media hype, and nobody would have either heard about it, or cared. Why does the fact that she was having sex make any difference?

Because it was a work trip, that the commonwealth was paying for. The room is somewhere to sleep and clean, not for dirty getaways for couples or booty calls.

If I got injured by rogering a lady of the night in a hotel room paid by my employer, I wouldn’t even entertain the idea of trying to sue them for damages. There just some activities that if you get hurt doing, you’ve got no one to blame but yourself.

Oh well, if they don’t win then I guess hotels will need their rooms to be certified to be safe for sexual intercourse. They’d have to test the bed, the wall, the shower, the carpet near the door that has a little gap under it so everyone in the hallway can hear, up against the window and probably the bench that the TV sits on.

I still fail to see why the fact that she was having sex has any relevance whatsoever. She was injured while on a work trip. She wasn’t behaving in a manner that was either illegal or immoral. She hadn’t (to the best of my knowledge, happy to be corrected) violated the public service code of conduct in any way.

I do agree that she has no-one to blame but herself, but you could make that argument about any number of compo claims that have been paid out in the past.

It’s also worth pointing out that she’s not actually suing anyone. She’s claiming against the workers compensation scheme, which is different (again, happy to be corrected if I’m wrong).

Please explain to me why this case should be treated any differently than if she’d injured herself by slipping in the shower. Do you think that public servants should be banned from having sex while away on business? Should public servants be forced to sit quietly in their hotel rooms when away on business and not engaged directly in work related activities?

Because she was directly responsible for her own injury. ie. Pulling the light fitting off the wall.

If she was playing chess and hit herself in the head with a rook, I would think the same. If she was dancing on a table and it broke, then I would think the same.

There must be a limit to what an employee is able to do.

RadioVK 3:11 pm 13 May 13

Dilandach said :

RadioVK said :

I don’t see what the big deal is.

If she’d slipped in the shower of the hotel room and injured herself, Comcare would have paid out the claim without all the media hype, and nobody would have either heard about it, or cared. Why does the fact that she was having sex make any difference?

Because it was a work trip, that the commonwealth was paying for. The room is somewhere to sleep and clean, not for dirty getaways for couples or booty calls.

If I got injured by rogering a lady of the night in a hotel room paid by my employer, I wouldn’t even entertain the idea of trying to sue them for damages. There just some activities that if you get hurt doing, you’ve got no one to blame but yourself.

Oh well, if they don’t win then I guess hotels will need their rooms to be certified to be safe for sexual intercourse. They’d have to test the bed, the wall, the shower, the carpet near the door that has a little gap under it so everyone in the hallway can hear, up against the window and probably the bench that the TV sits on.

I still fail to see why the fact that she was having sex has any relevance whatsoever. She was injured while on a work trip. She wasn’t behaving in a manner that was either illegal or immoral. She hadn’t (to the best of my knowledge, happy to be corrected) violated the public service code of conduct in any way.

I do agree that she has no-one to blame but herself, but you could make that argument about any number of compo claims that have been paid out in the past.

It’s also worth pointing out that she’s not actually suing anyone. She’s claiming against the workers compensation scheme, which is different (again, happy to be corrected if I’m wrong).

Please explain to me why this case should be treated any differently than if she’d injured herself by slipping in the shower. Do you think that public servants should be banned from having sex while away on business? Should public servants be forced to sit quietly in their hotel rooms when away on business and not engaged directly in work related activities?

Ben_Dover 3:07 pm 13 May 13

Dear god, has anyone before gone to such lengths to prove what a good lay they are?

bundah 2:42 pm 13 May 13

She was hanging on to that chandelier like she was a bucking bronco but she pulled a little too hard methinks 🙂

Dilandach 2:04 pm 13 May 13

RadioVK said :

I don’t see what the big deal is.

If she’d slipped in the shower of the hotel room and injured herself, Comcare would have paid out the claim without all the media hype, and nobody would have either heard about it, or cared. Why does the fact that she was having sex make any difference?

Because it was a work trip, that the commonwealth was paying for. The room is somewhere to sleep and clean, not for dirty getaways for couples or booty calls.

If I got injured by rogering a lady of the night in a hotel room paid by my employer, I wouldn’t even entertain the idea of trying to sue them for damages. There just some activities that if you get hurt doing, you’ve got no one to blame but yourself.

Oh well, if they don’t win then I guess hotels will need their rooms to be certified to be safe for sexual intercourse. They’d have to test the bed, the wall, the shower, the carpet near the door that has a little gap under it so everyone in the hallway can hear, up against the window and probably the bench that the TV sits on.

thebrownstreak69 1:57 pm 13 May 13

RadioVK said :

I don’t see what the big deal is.

If she’d slipped in the shower of the hotel room and injured herself, Comcare would have paid out the claim without all the media hype, and nobody would have either heard about it, or cared. Why does the fact that she was having sex make any difference?

If she’d been rooting in the shower and ripped the shower head out of the wall and spanked herself in the head then we probably would have heard about it!

This also gives rise (ha!) to the concept of masturbation-related injuries in the workplace. We should commission a study to work out how to prevent such injuries occurring.

Snave81 1:35 pm 13 May 13

RadioVK said :

I don’t see what the big deal is.

If she’d slipped in the shower of the hotel room and injured herself, Comcare would have paid out the claim without all the media hype, and nobody would have either heard about it, or cared. Why does the fact that she was having sex make any difference?

Do you really think that she deserves compo for pulling a light fitting off the wall and getting a whack in the face?

Should the tax payer also compensate the hotel owner for the damage to the room?

RadioVK 1:02 pm 13 May 13

I don’t see what the big deal is.

If she’d slipped in the shower of the hotel room and injured herself, Comcare would have paid out the claim without all the media hype, and nobody would have either heard about it, or cared. Why does the fact that she was having sex make any difference?

Diggety 12:50 pm 13 May 13

Why is her name withheld?

(And her number if she’s hot)

HiddenDragon 11:57 am 13 May 13

The film version is called Carry On, Comcare – with Barbara Windsor at the front desk of the motel.

Anyone who wants to accuse the RiotAct off being PC should take note of the title of this thread – great stuff! (you wouldn’t see a headline like that in The Crimes).

dungfungus 11:55 am 13 May 13

If she wins in the High Court then everyone will be saying “I’ll have what she’s having”

devils_advocate 11:51 am 13 May 13

“Now everyone who likes a bedroom romp should be hoping the High Court rules for Comcare. Otherwise your personal life will be getting a lot more employer regulation.”

Ok, probably that was tongue-in-cheek, but based on comment #1 –

No-one can stop anyone else engaging in consensual, otherwise legal activities. All they can do is attempt to limit their own liability that might arise from such activities.

Also, it’s not clear why they couldn’t just sue the hotel – even if they don’t have deep pockets, surely they have insurance.

Dilandach 11:36 am 13 May 13

This is the type of person that spoils it for everyone else. Public and Private industry.

Cue the inevitable rules and regulations to tighten down what happens when you’re sent out of town / country when you’re outside the normal working hours.

1 2 3 4

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site