Matters in the Media

His Co-worker Had a Violent Past. His Boss Knew. He Was Attacked Anyway. $585,000.

Colwell v Top Cut Foods

A Gold Coast butcher raised concerns about a volatile co-worker with a known criminal history. Both of them asked to be separated. The employer did nothing. A few days later the co-worker attacked him from behind, striking him repeatedly in the head. The District Court awarded $585,000.

This case is one of the clearest decisions on what it takes to put an employer on notice about the risk of co-worker violence — and what they're obligated to do about it when they are.

Get Free Advice → 📞 0410 901 831
$585,000
Total damages awarded
Multiple
Warning events before the attack — each added to the employer's notice
Both
Workers asked to be separated — the employer ignored both requests
The Case

Colwell v Top Cut Foods

The plaintiff was employed as a knife hand and butcher at a food processing facility in Burleigh on the Gold Coast — the kind of workplace injury matter regularly handled by workers compensation lawyers Gold Coast practitioners. He worked back-to-back with a co-worker known as P, and their supervisor Mr Hall worked beside them.

P did not get along with the plaintiff. He was physically intimidating, had openly spoken about his violent criminal history, and had mentioned previous altercations at past jobs. The plaintiff raised his fears about P with Mr Hall directly, stating he believed the situation was volatile and he feared for his safety.

Despite this, nothing changed. Tensions escalated through a series of incidents over the following weeks. Both P and the plaintiff separately asked Mr Hall to separate them. Mr Hall told them to go to the office to resolve the matter — and on the way there, P attacked the plaintiff from behind, striking him multiple times in the back of the head and face until two co-workers restrained him. The plaintiff suffered physical injuries and PTSD. P was dismissed.

Read the full judgment on Queensland Judgements
Don't feel like reading? Watch our breakdown on TikTok

Cumulative warning events — not one single incident — put the employer on notice

The defendant argued that no single incident before the attack was sufficient to put them on notice of the risk of violence. The court disagreed. It found that the multiple warning events had a cumulative effect on the employer's awareness. No one event was decisive — the combination of them was.

The court identified the turning point as the interaction involving the racial comment and both workers' separate requests to be separated. After that moment, the employer was effectively on notice that the risk of harm was real and significant. What it did — or failed to do — after that moment was the breach.

Critically, the court found that separating the workers was inexpensive and non-onerous. This wasn't a case where the precaution would have required significant cost or operational disruption. Simply moving them apart would have been likely to prevent the attack. Choosing not to do so, even after both men had raised the issue, was the employer's failure.

How the warning events stacked up

The court found these events had a cumulative effect. Each one added to what the employer knew — and what it was therefore obligated to do about it.

Warning event 1

P speaks openly about his violent criminal history and past altercations

P disclosed his criminal history and previous altercations at past jobs to those working around him. This was known in the workplace environment, including to the supervisor. The employer had at least broad awareness of P's propensity for violence or aggression.

Warning event 2

The plaintiff formally raises concerns with his supervisor

The plaintiff told Mr Hall he feared for his safety and believed the situation between himself and P was volatile. This was a direct complaint to a supervisor. It placed the employer on notice that the plaintiff perceived a real risk.

Warning event 3 — Prior departure

P had previously stopped working for the defendant after a verbal argument

A few years earlier, P had left the business following a verbal altercation. This was known to the employer and formed part of the court's finding that it was broadly aware of P's history of aggression — not just from what P had said himself, but from direct experience.

Turning point — Employer effectively on notice

Racial comment incident — both workers separately ask to be separated

After an incident involving an inappropriate racial remark, P told Mr Hall that the plaintiff was "really getting to him." The plaintiff also separately requested separation. The court found this was the moment the employer was effectively on notice about the risk of harm to the plaintiff. Everything that followed — including the failure to separate them — was measured against this.

The attack

P strikes the plaintiff repeatedly in the head on the way to the office

After P apologised and the plaintiff calmly dismissed the apology, P became aggressive and invited the plaintiff to a confrontation outside. Mr Hall intervened and directed them to the office. On the way, P attacked the plaintiff from behind, striking him multiple times until restrained by co-workers. The employer had not separated them at any point after being on notice.

Two breaches the court found against the employer

Once on notice, the employer had a duty to act. It failed at two distinct points.

1

Failing to separate the workers after the racial comment incident

After both workers separately asked to be separated — after the interaction the court identified as putting the employer on notice — the employer took no action. Separating the workers would have been inexpensive and non-onerous. The court found it would likely have prevented the attack occurring. Choosing not to act was the first breach.

2

Failing to physically separate them immediately before the attack

In the moments before the attack, when P was again visibly agitated and the situation was escalating, the supervisor sent both men to the office together — without separating them or ensuring the plaintiff's safety on the way. Having them walk unescorted to the office in that context was a second, distinct failure to take a readily available precaution.

Alex's Take
"

The cumulative warning events finding is really the heart of this case. Employers will often argue that no single complaint or incident was enough to put them on notice. This decision says that's the wrong question — courts look at everything together. Each event adds to the picture, and at some point the picture becomes clear enough that inaction is no longer defensible.

The other thing worth noting is how the court treated the "easy precaution" point. Separating two workers is not a complex intervention. It costs almost nothing and disrupts almost nothing. When the precaution is that simple — and when both employees have literally asked for it — the employer's failure to act becomes very difficult to justify. The more straightforward the fix, the less sympathy courts have for the employer who didn't make it.

If you're in a situation where you have raised concerns about a co-worker's behaviour and nothing has been done, document what you've said, when you said it, and who you said it to. That paper trail is often the difference between a viable claim and one that doesn't get off the ground.

Alex Bassingthwaighte
Alex Bassingthwaighte
Founder & Principal, Claimwise
Ready when you are

Tell us what happened at work.

One conversation. No pressure. Tell us a bit about your situation and we'll be in touch.

Make an Enquiry

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Get Free Advice →