Payout denied in work-sex incident A HIGH Court decision removing employer liability for an injury sustained by a woman while having sex on a work trip may make it harder to resolve workplace compensation disputes. The High Court yesterday found the federal government's workplace safety insurer, Comcare, was not liable to pay for injuries sustained by a female commonwealth government employee while having sex on a 2007 work trip to Nowra. The woman, then in her late 30s and employed in the human relations section of a commonwealth government agency, was staying in a motel booked by her employer. During intercourse, a glass light fitting above the bed was pulled from its mount, damaging the woman's nose and mouth. She also claimed post-traumatic stress disorder. "I think she was on her back when it happened but I was not paying attention because we (were) rolling around," her companion said in a statement to the Federal Court. She sought compensation from Comcare on the basis that the injuries were suffered "in the course of" her employment. This was upheld by a full bench of the Federal Court, which found the woman's injuries occurred in an "interval or interlude" during an overall period of work. By special leave, Comcare appealed to the High Court, which found in a majority decision that the "interval or interlude" during which the injury occurred did not arise as a result of, or encouragement by, the employer. Minister for Employment Eric Abetz hailed the ruling as a win for common sense. "This decision also means that the definition of 'work-related injury' is more clearly defined," he said. University of Adelaide workplace relations expert Andrew Stewart said while the decision looked like a commonsense outcome, it had "actually made determining employer liability significantly less clear." Professor Stewart said that, according to the judgment, if the lighting fixture had simply fallen on her because it was defective, even if she was having sex at the time, the commonwealth would have been liable.