The courts rejected a personal injury claim against Tarmac on the basis that there was not a sufficiently close connection between the act which caused the injury and the employee’s work. He was not authorised to carry out the act by Tarmac, the pellet targets were not work equipment, hitting pellet targets was not part of his work, and the act did not advance Tarmac’s purposes. The Court of Appeal also found Tarmac was not in breach of its duty of care to the claimant as no reasonably foreseeable risk of injury had been established.