An Australian bureaucrat who was injured while having sex in a motel room during a business trip has won a five-year legal battle against the federal government for worker's compensation.
AP on Monday read the reasons cited by the Full Bench of the Federal Court gave for the mishap on Dec. 13 for rejecting an appeal by the government's insurer Comcare against an earlier court declaration that the woman was injured in the course of her employment.
The woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was staying in a motel in the town of Nowra, 160 kilometers (100 miles) south of her hometown of Sydney, on Nov. 26, 2007, when she had sex with a male friend in her room.
She was then aged in her late 30s.
During the sex, a glass light fitting was torn from its mount above the bed and landed on her face, injuring her nose and mouth. The courts have not decided on whether the woman or the man dislodged the light, ruling that factor irrelevant to the case.
The woman was treated in hospital for her injuries. She later suffered depression and was unable to continue working for the government.
Her claim for worker's compensation for her physical and psychological injuries was initially approved by Comcare then rejected after further investigation.
She unsuccessfully appealed to the government's Administrative Appeals Tribunal which reviews bureaucrats' decisions. The tribunal agreed with Comcare that her injuries were not suffered in the course of her employment.
The tribunal found that the government had not induced or encouraged the woman's sexual conduct and could not have reasonably expected that she would have contemplated it.
The tribunal also found the sex was not an ordinary incident of an overnight stay'' such as showering, sleeping and eating.
The woman won an appeal in the Federal Court on April 19, 2012, when Judge John Nicholas rejected the tribunal's findings that the sex had to be condoned by the government if she were to qualify for compensation.
If the applicant had been injured while playing a game of cards in her motel room, she would be entitled to compensation even though it could not be said that her employer induced her to engage in such activity,'' Nicholas wrote in his judgment in favor of the woman receiving compensation.