An employer's duty of care to employees is not negated by an employee's voluntary agreement to work with a client known to pose risks of physical or sexual assault, even where the employee is an experienced professional aware of the risks. Where an employer knows that a client has caused successive employees to cease working due to dangerous behaviour, the reasonable precaution may be to discontinue services to that client rather than permit a further employee to be exposed to the risk. The social utility of the employer's services is a relevant but not determinative consideration under s 305B(2). The dissent would have held that the risk must be assessed according to the specific context of each interaction, and that the risk at a formal meeting in government offices was insignificant.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.