Worker Held Hostage and Attacked by Manager Whilst Working from Home – Recent Personal Injury Commission Decision

Emma Thomson & Taylor O'Connor

11/12/2025

When working from home the last thing you expect to happen is that you may be held hostage in your own home, especially not by your manager.

The recent Personal Injury Commission decision of Allsop v NCC Group Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 553 provides insight into distinguishing between whether an injury occurred in a worker’s personal life or in the course of their employment under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) (‘the Act’).

Background

The Applicant, Calum Allsop, was employed by NCC Group Pty Ltd as a Client Engagement Manager. On 28 April 2022, while working from home under approved arrangements, Mr Allsop was visited by his Manager, Edward Ben Fitzpatrick, for a work-related meeting. During this visit, Mr Fitzpatrick held Mr Allsop captive for over three hours, repeatedly assaulting him, including with a knife. The incident understandably caused Mr Allsop to sustain a significant psychological injury.

The Respondent, NCC Group Pty Ltd, did not dispute that Mr Allsop sustained a psychological injury from the incident but argued that the incident was unrelated to his employment, citing a failed cryptocurrency investment between Mr Allsop and Mr Fitzpatrick as the cause of the assault.

Key Legal Issues

The key issues the Commission had to determine were as follows:

Personal Injury Commission Decision

The Commission found in favour of the Applicant, concluding that:

Injury in the Course of Employment: The injury occurred in the course of the Applicant’s employment. Mr Allsop was working from home and engaged in a work-related meeting with his manager when the incident occurred. Despite the deviation caused by Mr Fitzpatrick's actions, Mr Allsop remained within the scope of his employment as he was unable to remove himself from the situation.
Employment Substantial Contributing Factor: The Commission held that Mr Allsop's employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury. The temporal and situational connection between the employment and the injury was sufficient, regardless of Mr Fitzpatrick's personal motives for the assault.

Legal Principles

The Commission relied on established legal principles, including:

The definition of “in the course of employment” as encompassing acts incidental to the performance of work duties.

The requirement for a temporal relationship between employment and injury, without necessitating a causal connection.
The principle that a worker is prima facie in the course of employment unless there is evidence of abandonment.

The Commission also referenced Kelly v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2014] MSWCA 102, emphasising that the subjective motivation of the aggressor is not determinative where the employment context significantly contributes to the injury.

Outcome

The Commission ordered that the matter be referred to a Medical Assessor for an assessment of whole person impairment arising from the psychological injury, for the purpose of determining whether Mr Allsop was entitled to lump sum compensation.

Implications

This case highlights the responsibility of employers to ensure the safety of employees, even in remote working arrangements. Additionally, it reinforces the principle that employment need only be a substantial contributing factor to an injury, not the sole cause.

Conclusion

The decision in Allsop v NCC Group Pty Ltd provides valuable guidance for employers, employees, and legal practitioners navigating the complexities of workers compensation claims. It underscores the importance of understanding the interplay between employment conditions and personal actions in determining liability.

For further information or assistance with workers compensation claims, please contact Foye Legal. Our experienced team is here to provide expert legal advice and representation.