Allsop v NCC Group Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 553

Link to decision  Link to video

Key takeaways

This decision highlights the broad interpretation that can be applied to sections 4 and 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (WCA 1987).

Brief facts

On 28 April 2022, while working from home, the worker was visited by his manager to discuss concerns about the team’s underperformance.

The conversation then turned to a poor cryptocurrency investment made by both parties, which had cost them a significant amount of money. The manager blamed the worker for his losses and held him hostage at knife point in his apartment for approximately 3.5 hours before the worker managed to escape.

The worker lodged a claim for lump sum compensation for a psychological injury sustained as a result of this event. The insurer disputed the claim, arguing that although the initial discussion was work-related, the subsequent events were unrelated to employment and instead connected to the failed cryptocurrency investment.

The dispute primarily relied on sections 4 and 9A of the WCA 1987.

Judgment

Member Halstead agreed with the insurer in that the events constituted a deviation from employment, but emphasised that this deviation was caused by the manager’s actions.

Whether or not the manager’s conduct stemmed from the failed cryptocurrency scheme, Member Halstead noted that the manager was in the worker’s home and workplace specifically for a meeting to discuss work matters, at the manager’s request, and that the manager was in a position of authority over the worker during that time.

The Member found that the worker had done everything necessary to facilitate his continued work by agreeing to hold the meeting at his home on that date. The fact that the conversation shifted to a non-work topic and the manager behaved as he did was beyond the worker’s control and did not remove the worker from the course of his employment.

It followed that the Member concluded the incident occurred in the course of the worker’s employment, satisfying section 4 of the WCA 1987.

The Member acknowledged that ‘but for’ the failed cryptocurrency investment, the attack may not have occurred, as argued by the insurer. However, Member Halstead clarified that the proper consideration was whether the manager’s conduct itself contributed to the worker’s injury, rather than the reason for such conduct.

In circumstances where there was no dispute that:

• The manager assaulted the worker, resulting in psychological injury;
• The manager was in a position of power over the worker at the time; and
• The assault occurred while they were both at the worker’s home for work reasons.

Member Halstead was satisfied that the worker’s employment was also a substantial contributing factor to his injury, thereby satisfying section 9A of the 1987 Act.

The worker’s claim for permanent impairment was then referred to a Medical Assessor for assessment.

Implications

It is not an inherent requirement for there to be a direct causal connection between employment and a worker’s injury so long as the existence of a temporal connection is demonstrated. This case illustrates that liability can be established even in the most extraordinary circumstances.