DEW T/as AG AND PG DEW v MAHER [1996] NSWCA 154

DEW T/as AG AND PG DEW v MAHER [1996] NSWCA 154

The respondent was guilty of gross misconduct by using the employer's explosives for a purpose entirely foreign to employment, namely in making a bomb to frighten others, which removed him from the course of employment, despite the employer's general encouragement of activities like pig shooting. Injuries sustained in that context are not compensable under workers compensation laws.

Parties
Appellant: DEW T/as AG AND PG DEW; Respondent: MAHER
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Gross Misconduct, Course of Employment, Injury at Work, Causal Connection, Incidents During Recreational Activity
Employment Law Workers Compensation Gross Misconduct Course of Employment Injury at Work Causal Connection Incidents During Recreational Activity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DEW T/as AG AND PG DEW

Appellant

MAHER

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent suffered injury in the course of employment while engaged in an activity incidental to employment
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in applying Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd and Van Haeften v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was guilty of gross misconduct taking him outside the course of employment

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was guilty of gross misconduct by using the employer's explosives for a purpose entirely foreign to employment, namely in making a bomb to frighten others, which removed him from the course of employment, despite the employer's general encouragement of activities like pig shooting. Injuries sustained in that context are not compensable under workers compensation laws.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal upheld
  • Award dated 13 December 1995 set aside