Matters in the Media

Attacked in a Factory Car Park at Night. Won $150,000 at Trial. Lost it All on Appeal.

Inghams v Tat [2018] QCA

A female shift worker at Inghams' chicken processing factory was attacked by an ex-employee in the car park late at night. She won $150,000 at trial. The Court of Appeal overturned it — not because the risk of harm wasn't foreseeable or significant, or because there was no breach of duty, but because causation failed. The Court held Inghams' breach of duty was not proven to be a necessary condition of the plaintiff's injury.

This case sits alongside Coca Cola v Pareezer as one of the most important Australian decisions on the limits of causation — and why proving a breach isn't the same as proving it caused your injury.

Get Free Advice → 📞 0410 901 831
$150,000
Awarded at trial — then overturned on appeal
3
Assumptions the causation chain depended on — none were proven
0
Prior workers who reported the attacker's behaviour to security that night
The Case

Inghams v Tat
[2018] QCA

Kim Yen Tat was a shift worker at Inghams' chicken processing factory at Murarrie in Queensland. Late one night, after finishing her shift, she was attacked in the factory's car park by an ex-employee. She sustained significant PTSD and sued Inghams for damages under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) — the same legislation that governs claims handled by workers compensation lawyers Gold Coast wide.

Before attacking Tat, the ex-employee had approached three other female workers in the car park, spinning various versions of the same story in what appeared to be an attempt to coax them into his vehicle. None of those three workers felt his behaviour was menacing enough to report to the security guard who was stationed in an office nearby.

Inghams had a security guard present but had not provided security awareness training to its staff, and its security measures were not geared toward addressing the risk of third-party violence to employees leaving after shifts.

Read the full judgment on Queensland Judgements Further reading — Hall & Wilcox analysis
Don't feel like reading? Watch our breakdown on TikTok

Breach of duty established. Causation not.

The trial judge found Inghams had breached its duty of care by failing to train staff to report suspicious activity and by failing to gear its security measures toward the risk of third-party violence. That finding of breach was not disturbed on appeal. However, the Court of Appeal held the plaintiff failed to establish causation.

Where the case fell apart was causation. The trial judge's reasoning depended on a sequence of three conclusions: that a trained worker would have reported the attacker's behaviour, that the security guard would have located and directed him to leave, and that he would have complied and not returned. None of these conclusions were supported by evidence. The Court of Appeal found they amounted to mere conjecture.

In particular, there was no evidence at all that the attacker — a man who had already approached three workers and was intent on violence — would have complied with a security guard's direction to leave. Without that link, the chain of causation broke. The but-for test was not satisfied, and the damages were overturned.

Same negligence. Two different conclusions on causation.

The breach was never in dispute on appeal. What split the courts was whether the trial judge's causal reasoning was inference or conjecture.

District Court — Trial

Training would have triggered a chain of events preventing the attack

Inghams failed to train staff to report suspicious activity and failed to gear security toward third-party violence. Had it done so, a trained worker would have reported the attacker, the guard would have located and removed him, and he would not have returned to attack Tat.

The post-incident warning email Inghams sent to staff — advising them to report suspicious behaviour — was treated as evidence of what proactive measures should have been in place before the attack.

✓ $150,000 awarded to plaintiff
Court of Appeal — Unanimous

The causal chain relied on conjecture, not reasonable inference

Each step in the trial judge's causal reasoning — that a worker would have reported, that the guard would have acted, that the attacker would have complied and not returned — was unsupported by evidence. That is conjecture, not inference.

Critically, there was nothing to suggest a determined attacker who had already approached three workers would have simply walked away if asked to by a security guard. The causation could not be established on the evidence.

✕ Damages overturned — Inghams successful on appeal

The three unproven links in the causal chain

The trial judge's causation reasoning depended on three sequential conclusions. The Court of Appeal found none of them were supported by evidence — each was conjecture rather than reasonable inference.

1
Unproven — conjecture

A trained worker would have reported the attacker's behaviour to security

Three workers had already encountered the attacker before the assault. None of them felt his behaviour was menacing enough to report. The trial judge assumed that with security awareness training they would have — but there was no evidence to support that assumption. The three workers who were actually there made a different judgment in real time.

If that had happened, the next assumption was…
2
Unproven — conjecture

The security guard would have located the attacker and directed him to leave

Even if a report had been made, the trial judge assumed the guard would have found the attacker in the car park and directed him off the premises. There was no evidence about what the guard would actually have done in that situation, how quickly he would have responded, or whether he would have found the right person.

And if that had happened, the final assumption was…
3
Unproven — conjecture

The attacker would have complied and not returned

This was the most critical gap. The attacker had already approached three workers and was clearly intent on finding a victim. There was no evidence at all that he would have simply complied with a direction to leave — let alone that he would not have returned afterward. The Court of Appeal found this assumption in particular was entirely unsupported.

Alex's Take
"

This case and Coca Cola v Pareezer sit together as the two clearest illustrations of how causation can defeat an otherwise strong negligence claim. In both cases the employer was found to have breached its duty of care. However, in both cases the claim ultimately failed because the plaintiff could not establish the necessary causal link between the breach and the injury.

The third link in the chain is the one courts will always scrutinise hardest when the harm is caused by a third party's criminal act. Would the attacker have complied? Would they have come back anyway? These questions go to the behaviour of someone who has already demonstrated an intent to commit a crime. Assuming they would have been deterred by a security guard's direction is a significant leap — and courts require more than a hopeful assumption to satisfy the but-for test.

The practical lesson: in cases involving third-party criminal acts, causation evidence needs to specifically address what the attacker would have done differently. General arguments about what a trained security response "would have" achieved are not enough if they can't be grounded in something more than inference.

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

Tell us what happened.

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 →