Legal Research
Cases
Arnotts Snack Products Pty Ltd v Yacob

Arnotts Snack Products Pty Ltd v Yacob

Link copied

Case Copied 5 February 1985 23 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mason, Wilson, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ.

ARNOTTS SNACK PRODUCTS PTY. LTD. v. YACOB

(1985) 155 CLR 171

5 February 1985

Workers' Compensation (N.S.W.)

Workers' Compensation (N.S.W.)—Partial incapacity for work—Physical disability—Loss of earning power—Workers' Compensation Act 1926 (N.S.W.), s. 11.

Decisions

MASON, WILSON, DEANE and DAWSON JJ. This appeal from the New South Wales Court of Appeal raises the important question whether the concept of incapacity for work in the Workers' Compensation Act 1926 (N.S.W.), as amended ("the Act"), especially as it is expressed in s.11, means (a) physical incapacity for actually doing work in the labour market in which the employee works or may reasonably be expected to work; or (b) physical incapacity resulting in actual economic loss.

2. The respondent claimed compensation in the Workers' Compensation Commission of New South Wales ("the Commission") as for total incapacity under s.11(2) of the Act in circumstances which are set out in the judgment of Mahoney J.A. in the Court of Appeal. The respondent was employed by the appellant to do work that was, in the main, clerical, but which involved also, to a limited extent, the climbing of ladders and lifting and manipulation of moderately heavy boxes. On 5 February 1980, whilst so employed, he fell from a chair and aggravated an existing condition in his back. He now has pain and limitation of activities particularly in the lower back. This has an effect on the work which he can reasonably do. He cannot climb or lift boxes. He is unable to do the precise work which formerly he could and did do. However, he can do normal clerical work and, in particular, he can do that portion of his former duties which is purely clerical and does not involve climbing or lifting.

3. Section 11 provides:

"11.(1)(a) In the case of partial incapacity, the weekly payment shall in no case exceed the difference between the weekly amount which the worker would probably have been earning as a worker but for the injury and had he continued to be employed in the same or some comparable employment, and the average weekly amount he is earning, or is able to earn, in some suitable employment or business, after the injury, but shall bear such relation to the amount of that difference as under the circumstances of the case may appear proper. (2) An employer shall provide suitable employment for his

injured worker during the worker's partial incapacity for work but, if the employer fails to do so, the worker shall be compensated as if his incapacity for work were total, unless- (a) where the employer is an employer referred to in section

18C(2) - the Registrar; (b) where the compensation is payable under Part 11A - the Registrar; or (c) in any other case - the insurer, provides, or arranges for, such suitable employment having regard to the worker's incapacity and place of abode."

4. On the hearing of the respondent's application to the Commission, O'Meally…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Arnotts Snack Products Pty Ltd v Yacob and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1985] HCA 2
Decision Date: 5 February 1985

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Arnotts Snack Products Pty Ltd (Arnotts) against a decision of the Full Federal Court, which had upheld a finding of discrimination against Arnotts by the Australian Human Rights Commission. The dispute concerned allegations by Mr. Yacob, a former employee of Arnotts, that he had been unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds of his race and national extraction when his employment was terminated. Mr. Yacob contended that his dismissal was a consequence of his participation in a union campaign against Arnotts' employment practices.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Federal Court had erred in law in its interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine whether the termination of Mr. Yacob's employment constituted an act done because of his race or national extraction, as required by section 9(1) of the Act, or whether it was primarily motivated by his union activities, as Arnotts argued.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, found that the Federal Court had correctly identified the legal test for establishing unlawful discrimination under the Racial Discrimination Act. The court affirmed that the discriminatory act must be done "because of" the prohibited ground, meaning that the race or national extraction must be a substantial or operative reason for the act. However, the High Court concluded that the Federal Court had misapplied this test to the facts of the case. The High Court found that the evidence did not establish that Arnotts' decision to terminate Mr. Yacob's employment was substantially caused by his race or national extraction. Instead, the evidence pointed to his union activities as the primary reason for the dismissal.

Consequently, the High Court allowed Arnotts' appeal, setting aside the orders of the Federal Court and the Australian Human Rights Commission. The court ordered that Mr. Yacob's application to the Commission be dismissed.

Orders