Buchanan and Brock Pty Ltd v Harris

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning a claim for workers' compensation. The applicant, Myrtle Margaret Harris, sought compensation following the death of her husband, William Arthur Harris, who had been employed by the respondent, Buchanan & Brock Pty Ltd. The deceased sustained a leg injury during the course of his employment, which led him to cease work and remain at home. He was attended by his doctor on several occasions at his home, with the last visit on 18 April 1955, where he was advised to rest in bed for approximately another week. Three days later, while resting at home, the deceased vomited blood and subsequently died in hospital from carcinoma of the stomach, a condition found to be unrelated to his leg injury.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the deceased's death was deemed to arise out of or in the course of his employment under section 8(2)(b)(iii) of the *Workers Compensation Act 1951* (Vict.), as amended. This provision deemed an injury to arise out of or in the course of employment if it occurred while a worker was travelling between their place of residence or employment and another place for the purpose of obtaining medical treatment, or if the worker was "in attendance at any place for any such purpose." The Workers Compensation Board had found that the deceased's death was a result of an injury deemed to arise out of or in the course of employment, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

A majority of the High Court (Dixon C.J., McTiernan, Kitto, and Taylor JJ.) held that a worker cannot be considered to be "in attendance at any place for any such purpose" within the meaning of section 8(2)(b)(iii) at their own place of residence or place of employment. The Court reasoned that the provision was intended to cover attendance at a location *other than* the worker's home or workplace, to which they had travelled for a specified purpose. Furthermore, even if the deceased's home could be considered a place of attendance for medical treatment, the Court found that he was at home due to his incapacitating injury, not because he had attended there for the specific purpose of receiving treatment. The Court also noted that the deceased's death was caused by carcinoma, which was unrelated to the leg injury or any subsequent event, and therefore not a compensable injury under the Act.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, discharged the order of the Supreme Court of Victoria, and ordered that the respondent's application for compensation be dismissed.