Burmeister, WIlliam James v Pratt, Gordon Augustin

CATCHWORDS

WORKMEN'S COKPENSATION - CONTRACTOR AGREEING TO FELL

TREES - DEEMED EMPLOYEE - CERTAINTY OF TERMS OF S A I D

AGFXEMENT .

WORKtiEN'S

COMPENSATION

ORDINANCE

1 9 5 1

( A . C . T . )

S . 6 ( 3 A ) .

I N THE MATTER of AhT APPEAL from the SuPRJ3ME COURT o f the

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN

WILLIAM

J L W S DURMEISTER

A p p e l l a n t

AND

GORDON AUGUSTIN

PUTT

R e s p o n d e n t

N o . l % of

1977

CORAM	a	SMITHERS, NIMMO and CONNOR JJ
C a n b e r r a

14 Mnrch

1 9 7 8 .

.. .

I N TllE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA !

AUSTRALIAN

CAPITAL

TERRITORY

N o . 1 2

1977

D I S T R I C T	R E G I S T R Y
GENERAL	D I V I S I O N

I N THE MATTER o f

AN APPEAL from the Supreme C o u r t

the A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l

T e r r i t o r y

BETWEEN

I i ILLIAM JAMES

BURHEISTER

A p p e l l a n t

GOR130N AUGUSTIN

P U T T

R e s p o n d e n t

O R D E R

J U D G E S

) W I N G

ORDER

SMITIIERS p

J .

NIMMO, J.

CONNOH, J.

DATE O F ORDER

14 March

1378

W E R E

MADE

C a n b e r r a

THB COURT

ORDERS

THAT

( 1 )

The A p p e a l be dismissed w i t h costs8

( 2 )

A l l O r d e r s

made by H i e

H o n o u r

M r .

J u s t i c e

Josko

be uphelh.

D i s t r i c t R e p i s t r a r

D a t e Entered

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 1

DISTRICT REGISTRY

No.12 of 1977

GENERAL DIVISION

IN THE MATTER of

AN APPEAL from the Supreme Court

of the Australian Capital Territory

BETWJ3EN

WILLLW JAElES BURMEISTER

Appellant

AND

GORDON AUGUSTIN

P U T T

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	SMITIERS	e	J .
NIMMO. J.
14 March 1378
Canberra

This is an appeal from a decision of Joske J. of the Supreme

Court of the Australian Capital Territory reversing a decision

of the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate

of the Territory who

dismissed an application for compensation under the Workmen's

Compensation Ordlnonce 1951 (A.C.T.)

brought by the present

reepondent.

The application arose out of an injury sustained

by the respondent

on 1 December 1975 when a tree fell on him

whilst he was working as a tree feller in the Kowon StatWForest

in the Territory.

The respondent claimed that he was carryin&

out work for the present appellant at the time and that because

he was doing 80 under a contract to fell trees which he had

entered into with the appellnnt the

relationship between them

was by virtue of the provisions of s.6(3A) of the Ordinance that

of deemed worker and deemed employer.

That relatjonship, if

established, entitled the respondent

to compensation under the

Ordinance.

Tho appellant denied the existence of ony auch

contract and consequently any such relationship.

Tho only

witnesses to give evidence before the Magistrate were the

respondent and the appellant, the latter having been called by

the respondent.

In his judgment I I i s Honour correctly sununarised

the evidence, ahve f o r the necessary substitution of appellant

for respondent end vice versa, in the f o l l o w i n g terms

'The respondent's evidence before the Magistrate

was that

commencing in January 1975 he was cutting timber f o r the

appellant'o father, Noel Burmeister, in the area of Tumut.

He provided the chain saws nnd fuel for them and his own

vehicle and axe and

other equlprnent and all Taintenance

and received money

for the tunher that

was carted away,

from where It vas cut, from Noel Burmeister who was carrying

on buslnens as N.S.

Bunneister and Son, and cheques drawn

in that name were paid to the respondent.

This

arrangement continued

until the end of October o r early

November 1975.

Until then the respondent continued to

work f o r Noel Burmeister. By this time Noel Burmeister's

quota in the Tumut area was nearly cut down and respondent

I/.

was running out of'-work.

The relationship between Noel

D u n e ~ s t e r

and his eon the appellant

had been an association

in business until early 197.5 when the association ceased

and the appellant came

to Canberra and started in a similar

business there on his

own account under the name of U . J .

I .

and M.E. Bunneister.

When the timber at Tumut was nonrly

cut out Noel Burmeister told the respondent that the appellant was a little bit short of log5 and asked him

whether he felt like going

over and cutting timber

for the

appellant.

As the respondent had practically nothing to

do, he agreed. Before

leaving Tumut the respondent had

spoken with the appellant about working for

him, going over

and cutting for him, coming over and helping

out. The

appellant knew that the respondent was just about cut out

at Tumut. I It was after this conversation

with the

appellant that Noel Burmeister spoke

to the reapondent as

set out above and Noel Burmeister told him to be

ver on

the Monday morning ready to start.

On the Monday the

respondent met the appellant at the Kowen State Forest and

the latter said to him "Go up and start there" and

the

respondent says "That was it".

The respondent started

cutting timber that day

in accordance with the usual

practice.

was paid by the appellant and the cheque was

signed "W.J. and M.E. Burmeister". Payment

in the

Canberra area was by the tonne not by the cubic metre as

in the Tumut area.

The respondent did the felling and

trimming of the trees and the appellant picked them

up in

his own truck at various times.

The respondent was paid

for such timber a3 got to the mill.

He received in all

three cheques-from..the appellant signed

"W.J. and M.E.

Burmeister".

The respondent supplied all his own gear,

truck, fuel and maintenance for the equipment.

His job

was to fell the trees, cut off the limbs, measure them

and cut them into various lengths. Provided

he supplied

the timber no one gave him

m y orders as to what he was to

do or anything of that naturo.

He had to supply a certain

amount within a certain time and

how and when he did it

was his own business.

The appellant gave evldence that

he had determined the rate

of payment which he had paid

the respondent and

he had shown him where to stnrt, that

was all.

He did not say anything about

how he had to do

the job or anything like that.

The appellant also said

that he knew the respondent was only coming out for a short

time until>

the appellant's father's operation started

again in the new year.

Tho appellant made no effort to

contradict or modify the respondent's evidence'.

After considering the evidence given by

the respondent and the

eppellant the Magistrate

was not satisfied that 'at the relevant

time' the respondent 'was a contractor for the purposes of the Ordinance' and dismissed his claim. Reference to his reasons for judgment indicates that he permitted himself to be

influenced by a misunderstanding of the significance of the

unreported decision of Fox J. in Guiseppe Nibali v. Canberra

Sawmilling Company and

the Commonwealth of Australia delivered

on 23 April 1968.

As a result he approached the case under the

impression that the respondent carried the onus of satisfying

him not only

that there was a contract between the respondent

and the appellant.w*th'&ference to the felling of trees but

also and with precision of every term of that contract and also,

it would seem, the terms

of some relationship of the parties to

the sawmiller to whom the locs of fallen trees would ultimately

be delivered by the appellant.

He pointed out that on the

r e l evan t ev ldence

i t

w a s

' n o t p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n

c l e a r v i e w

of what

w e r e

t he p rec i se a r r angemen t s

t he

t e r m s of agreement

be tween

the par t ies '

and

again

' I t

i s

p o s s i b l e . . . . t h a t

t h e

( r e sponden t ) w a s

c o n t r a c t o r w i t h t h e

sawmiller whose

i d e n t i t y

cannot

w i t h

c e r t a i n t y b e e s t a b l i s h e d a n d . . . . i t

i s

n o t p o s s i b l e

t o c l e a r l y d e f i n e

w i t h a n y c e r t a l n t y t h e e x a c t r e l a t i o n s h i p

b e t w e e n

t h e s a w m i l l e r a n d

t h e p a r t i e s , a n d

t h e p a r t i e s

i n t e r s e '

But

there

i s no

suggestion

in the

evidence that the

respondent

had any r e l a t ionsh ip

w i t h

the sawmil le r

t h a t a n y r e l a t i o n s h i p

whlch

the appeliLant might have had with

the

sawmil ler

w a s

imported

in any

way

t o any ex ten t

i n to

the

t e rms o f

t he

agreement

between

the respondent and

the appel

lant

c l e a r t h e r e f o r e

thet

t h e l e a r n e d

Magistrate

d i d n o t

p r o p e r l y d i r e c t

111s

mxnd

the c ruc ia l ques t io r ' whe the r

t he re

w a s

con t r ac t be tween pa r t i e s

' unde r wh lch the con t r ac to r ag rees

t o

f e l l

t r e e s '

( s e e s u b - s e c t i o n

6 ( 3 A ) ( a )

the

Ordxn,mce).

On appeal

Joslce

had

h e s i t a t i o n I n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e

X a g i s t r a t e

w a s p l a l n l y

wrong

i n h i s

c o n c l u s i o n .

reviewing

the

ovidence

iven

before

tha Nagis t ra te

the

learned

Judge

that

t h e r e

w a s

such

c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n

the

par t ies and a l lowed

the appea l .

T h e

a n s w e r

t o t h e - - c r u c i a l ' q u e s t i o n t o w h i c h t h e M a g i s t r a t e d i d

no t p rope r ly dx rec t

his mind

depended upon whether

or not having

recard

the knowledge of each par ty of

the

circumstances of

t h e o t h e r ,

t h e i r

c o n d u c t a n d

t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n s ,

t h e p r o p e r

in fe rence

to be

drawn

was

t h a t

t h e r e s p o n d e n t d i d a g r e e

t o f e l l

t r e e s f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t .

6 .

is c l e a r that

the a p p e l l a n t knew

that

the

respondent

w a s

m a n whose

occupat ion w a s that

f e l l i n g

t r e e s .

knew

t h a t

the resp0nder

had worked regular

the ordinary course of

that

occupat ion as a

t r e e f e l l e r

a t Tumut

f o r h i s f a t h e r Noel

nurmeis te r .

He knew that t h e work a t Tumut was running

f o r

the

t ime be ing and

tha t

the

respondent

w a s a v a i l a b l e for

o t h e r work

before

resuming

a t Tumut.

It w a s i n t h e s e

circumstances

that

t h e c o n v e r s a t l o n s

r e f e r r e d

t o

i n

t h e e v i d e n c e

took

place.

The

s i t u a t i o n was

tha t

t he

r e sponden t

wont

t o

t h o

Kowen

S t a t e P o r B s t w h e r e

t h e

t r e e s

t o b e c u t

f o r

t h e a p p e l l a n t

w e r e s i t u a t e d a f t e r

conver sa t ion in wh lch the appe l l an t

had

s a i d t o	the respondent	'You might have	to	come	over and holp us
o u t ' .

It is t o be gathered

from

the

evidence

that

t h e a p p e l l a n t t o l d

the respondent

t h e c l a s s

t imber he

was

c u t t l n g and that

' t he chaps

they had f e l l i ng

i t ,

they sor t o f couldn ' t keep

i t

up ' .

Monday morning

10 November

1975 the

respondent

met

t h e a p p e l l a n t

a t

t h e

liowen

S t a t e F o r e s t a n d t h e a p p e l l a n t s a i d ,

'Well,

go up and s t a r t

t h e r e ' .

The

respondent

worked

a t

f o l l i n g t r e e s f o r t h r e e

weeks

and

was

pa id each Fr iday

a t

r a t e

workad out

the

tonne.

It w a s on Monday

1 December a f t e r

t h e

reapondent had s ta r ted

work

a t

his

normal

time that he was

I n	j u r e d .

'\.' .

cross-examinat

ion

the

respondent

w a s asked,

'And

you

say your

j o b . . . . w a s

t o

f e l l

t h e

t r e e s ,

is that

r i g h t ? '

The

answer w a s ,

'Yes' .

Later he w a s asked,

'And

o f

cou r se

i n t h i s

j o b ,

suppose,

provided

that

you

suppliod

the

t imber

no one

gave

y o u

7 .

any orders of what you were to do o r anything of that nature?'

The answer w a s ,	'No, I had to supply a certain amount within a
certain time'.	He was asked, 'How you did it was your own

businees?'

The answer was, 'Yes, that's right, and when I did

it'. The evidence of the appellant discloaed that before tho respondent came over to his forest 'we just talked about

everything about the job.

Falling rate - what the falling

rate should be....we

just talked about it the way

we've always

talked about our w o r k ' .

said that the respondent arrived

Rt a date arranged by

his father and that he wao expecting him

when he arrived. Asked

what the nrrangemont with the

respondent was in connection with his felling of trees he

said,

'I knew he was only coming over here for 2 short time.

were invited over here to shift a certain amount of timber and

it kept on

getting bigger and bigger - he wanted us to shift

more and more.

The fellers I had could not put enough timber

on the ground for uss so it was suggested o r it came up somehow

or other that M r . Pratt might be interested

in coming over here,

o r WO said something to him - I don't k n o w how it nctually came

up. We knew he was only coming over for a short period of

time until my father's operation started again this year then

he was co ing back - or he only came over - he'd be back in tlme

for Christmas, stay there, and start on my father's operation

next year - this year'.

\ \

L..

It is therefore manifest that the respondent had been asked to

come to the appellant 'to help the appellant out' in relation

to felling trees and that the appellant accepted	that
Invitation.

The

respondent ' s working habl t s bomg

known,

t h e r e b e i n g

p r i ce a r r anged and

conternplatod duration of

the

t ime dur ing

whlch

the

respondent

would

work

with

the appellant,

c l e a r

i n f e r e n c e a r o s e

t h a t

the

respondent

agreed

f e l l

t r e e s f o r

the

appel

lan

working

accord

ing

to h is cue tornary procedures

a t

t h e a g r e e d r a t e d u r i n g

contemplated per iod.

There

was

unce r t a in ty a f f ec t ing the ag reemen t o f

kind which

nnght go t o

t h e

v e r y

e x i s t e n c e

t h e

c o n t r a c t .

T h e r e

w a s

evidenco

that

the

respondent

had

agreed

' a

c e r t a i n amount

w i t h i n

c e r t a i n

t i m e ' .

T h i s

i s

n o t

s p e l t

o u t

w i t h

f u r t h e r

p a r t i c u l a r i t y

b u t

i t

i s not

denied.

Hut

i n any

event

having

r e g a r d t o

the

clrcurnstances

the very agreement

go over

and

work

1111p1ied tha t

t he r e sponden t

would

work

f e l l i n g t r e e n f o r

the contemplated per

iod and

would

work

a c c o r d i n g t o h i s

accus tomed

procedures .

Cer

agreed

fe l l

t rees .

K O

q u e s t i o n s o f c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h o w l t n o s s e s a r o s e

i t

be ing

conceded

tha t bo th

were

endeavour ing

t e l l

t h e t r u t h .

ere

t h e r e f o r e s a t i s f i e d t h a t

t h e e v l d e n c e c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e s

that

t h e r e w a s a

cont rac t be tween

the

appel

lan

and

the

respondent under which the respondent contractor

was

f e l l i n g

t r e e s for the

appel1,ant

a t the

t ime he

w a s

i n j u r e d .

5 , * .

h f o r e

t h l s C o u r t ' - s e n i o r c o u n s e l

f o r

t h e a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d e d

t h a t

o n

i t s

t r u e c o n s t r u c t l o n

s.b(3X)

h a s a p p l i c a t i o n

only

t o

cases where there	1 s	a	legal ly binding agreement which imposes
d

o n

' t h e c o n t r a c t o r '

o b l i g a t i o n t o

one

or more of the

t h i n g s r e f e r r e d

t o

in t h e

s u b - s e c t i o n ,

i n

this

c a s e t o f e l l

9 .

t r e e s .

I n

s u p p o r t

h i 5

c o n t e n t i o n

r e l i e d

on C o l l i n s v.

Commissioner for Railways

(1933) 7 N.C.R.

( N . S . W . )

171.

f u r t h e r c o n t e n d e d t h a t

i n

t h i s

CRY^

t h e r e

was

such agreement

between

the

respondent and the appel lan t bu t mere ly an

arrangement under which

the rospondont could

if he wished, b u t

w i thou t be ing unde r any

l ega l oh l ign t ion

do so, f e l l trees

for

t h e a p p e l l a n t i n w h i c h e v e n t t h e a p p e l l a n t

would

pay

him

f o r h is worlc

a t the

ra te

agreed

upon

them.

Such

ar rangement counse l r igh t ly a rgued would be outs ide

the

provjs lons of

s:6(3A).

r e j e c t c o u n s e l ' s c o n t e n t i o n b e c a u s e i n

o n r

o p i n i o n , f o r

the

reasons we

have Eiven,

there

was a t the m a t e r i a l

time

not

mere

nrrangement between

the pflrt ies hut

l e g a l l y b i n d i n g

Rgreement.

Under

it5

terma

the

rempondent

w a s

o h l i g e d

t o

f e l l

t r e e s

t h e

Xowen

S t a t e F o r e s t f o r t h o a p p e l l a n t f o r t h e

contemplated period

and a t an

a g r e e d r a t e

o f remuneration.

Because

t h e e x i s t e n c e

o f

that

agreement

th i s case

i s

d l s t i n p n s h n b l o f r o m t h e C o l l i n s

Cflse

whore

the

New

South Wales

Supreme

Court

held

that no agreement

tho kind contemplated

by the r e l evan t s t a tu to ry p rov i s lon , wh ich

w a s

i n

material

r e s p e c t s similar

t o s.G(3A),

exis ted

be tween

the

p a r t i o s .

I n

the

present

case

the respondent

WRS

in jured whi le per forming

his

pa r t o f

11x3

agreement wi th

the appel lan t and

the re la t ionship

between him and

tlig

a p p e l l a n t b e i n g , i n

our

view,

thnt

of deemed

worker and

deemed employer for

the purposes of

t he

Ordinance he

i 5 ,

Josko

h e l d , g n t i t l c d t o c o m p e n s a t i o n u n d e r

the

re l evan t

p rov i s ions

o f

t he

Ord inance .

I n

upholding

the

appoal

from

the

Ilagistrate's

d e c i s i o n H i s Honour ordered the matter

10.

r e t u r n e d t o t h e M a g i s t r a t e f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n b y

him

the

compensat ion

be awarded to

the

rospondent .

Before

this

Court

q u e s t i o n a r o Q e

t o whether

His

Honour had power

t o

make

t ha t Orde r bu t

i t

u n n e c e s s a r y f o r

U B

t o c o n s i d e r

i t

for

t h e p a r t i e s h a v e c o n s e n t e d t o o f f e c t b e i n g g i v e n t o

that

Order.

fo l lows

tha t

the Cour t upholds

a l l t h e

Orders

made

His

Honour

and d iamiases

th i s appea l wi th cos ts .

> ?

1 , '

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

AUSTRALIAN

CAPITAL.

TERRITORY

N O .

o f 1'377

DISTRICT REGISTRY

, L	GENERAL DIVISION

AN APPEAL Cram thc

Suprcmc

Cour t

o f

t h c A u s t r a l i a n

C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y

BETWEEN

I ,

' ,111

D -

--	GORDON AUCIJSTIK PR.2TT

Rcspondcnt

; '

,',

.-.

J:EASONS

FOR JUDG3IEh'T

COKNOR,

14 March

1 9 7 5

C a n b e r r a

, ,

: ,!l1

I ,

T h i s

1s an

appcal

f r o m

t h e

S:~prc~ne

C o u r t

t h e

o f

r a l i a n

I . ,

, ,

C a p l t a l

T e r r i t o r y

w h l c h

r e v e r s e d

d e c l s l o n

o f

t h e

C o u r t

o f

P e t t y

S e s s l o n s

a t

C a n b e r r a

d i s m l 5 s i n g

t h e

r e s p o n d c n t ' s

c l a i m

f o r

w o r k e r ' s

c o n l p e n s a t ~ o n .

r e s p o n d e n t

i s

t i m b e r

c u t t c r

a n d

b r o u g h t

t h e

c l a i m a g a l n s t

t h e a p p e l l a n t , .

who

1 s

t i m b e r m e r c h a n t ,

f o r

c o n p e n s a t i o n

f o r

i n ~ u r l c s w h l c h he

s u f f e r c d

Deccmbcr

1 9 7 5 when

was

s t r u c k by

f a l l l n g t r e c

i n

t h e

K O W C I I

S t a t e F o r e s t

j n

t h e

I I

'	I	4 u s t r a l l a n	C a p i t a l	Territory.	T h c	r e s p o n d e n t	c l a i m s	t h J t	t h e
; I

' I

, I

a p p e l l a n t ,

i n

t h e

c o u r s e

o f o r Tor

t h e

p u r p o s c

o f

h i s

t r a d e o r

b u s l n e s s

a s

t i m b e r

n l e r c h a n t ,

e n t e r e d

I n t o

c o n t r a c t

w i t h

h i m

: ,

I., :	I . ,	t h e	p r e s e n t	a p p e a l	1 s	c o n c e r n e d	solely	w l t h	t h e	r c s o l u t l o n	of
!.	I, "

1 l,!':

t h i s

i s s u e .

S e c t l o n

G ( 3 A ) ,

i n s o f a r

a s

i t

r c l r v a n t

t o

t h l . ;

m. l t tc r

! 1.j

U!,, ,

I ,

I .

r e a d s

f o l l o w s : -

, I

(a)

p e r s o n

( I n

t h l s

s u b - s e c t l o n

r e f e r r c d

t o

" t h c

p r i n c l p g l " )

i n t h e

c o u r s e

o f

o r

€ o r

t h e

p u r p o s e

o f

h i s t r a d c

b u s i n e s s e n t e r s

I n t o

c o n t r a c t

w i t h

any

o t h e r

p e r s o n

o r

p c r s o n s

( I n

t h ~ s

s u h -

s c c t l o n

r c r c l r c d

t o

" t h e

c o n t r a c t o r " )

u n d c r

w h i c h	t h e	c o n t r a c t o r	a g r r c s	-
. . . . .

( i v )

t o

cal-r) o u t f o r

t h e

p r ~ n c i p a l

o n c

o r

morc

o f

t h e

- c r v ~ c e s

o f

l o g g i n g

(including

f c l l l n i : ,

c r o s s c u t t i n g ,

s n l g g l n g ,

l o a d i n g ,

c a r t i n g ,

I)untll1ng

,Ind

d e b a r k l n g ) ,

c l e a l l n g

o f

t l ~ n b c r ,

p r e p a r i n g

l a n d

f o r

p l a n t i n g

t l c e s ,

p l a n t i n g

t r c c s ,

p r u n i n g

t r e e s ,

o r

c o p p l c c

c l c a n i n g ;

a n d

(b )

t h c

c o n t r a c t o r

d o e s

n o t

e l t h e r

s y b l e t

t h e

c o n t r a c t

o r employ

w o r k e r s ,

o r

: l l though

employing

workers

a c t u a l l y

performs

any

p a r t

o f

t h e

w o r k h i m s e l f ,

the

c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l

f o r

t h c

p u r p o s c

t h ~ s

O r d i n a n c e ,

deemed

t o b e

work ing

unde r

c o n t r a c t

o f

s e r v i c e wlth

a n e m p l o y e r a n d

t h e p r i n c i p a l

shsl l

deemed

t o b e t h c

e m p l o y e r

t h e

c o n t r a c t o r . "

I t was

n o t

d l s p u t c d

I h a t

t h e

a p p e l l a n t ,

I C lic d

e n t c r

I n t o

such

c o n t r a c t ,

d i d s o

111 t h e

c o u r s e

o f

o r

f u r t h c

:mrpol;c

o f

h i s t r a d e

01'

b u s i n e s s

t l m b c r

m e r c h a n t .

S i m i l a r l y

i n

r e g a r d

t o

paragraph

( b )

t h e r e was

a l l e g a t i o n

t h a t ' t h c

r c s p o n d c n t

s u b l c t

t h e

c o n t r a c t

o r

employed

w o r k e r s .

The

r e l e v a n t

f a c t s

,are as

f o l l o w s .

T h e

r e s p o n d c n t

was

,_I

aged 39 when t h e

a c c i d e n t

h a p p e n e d

and

f r o m

t h e

a g c

o f

a b o u t

I ,

f i i t e e n h e

had

been

t i m b e r

c u t t e r

i n t h c 'Tumut

a r e a

t h c

S t a t e

I '

o f New South

Wales

For

many

y e a r s he

h n J worLcd

t n

t l l . l t

~ . , ~ p . l c t t y

1 , :

f o r

t i m b e r

l o g g e r

nnmcd

Noel

B u r m e j s t e r ,

\ % h 0 I.!.

t 1 1 ~

f.lt11c1 L){

t h ,

I ,I

,,l,, I : I

~ j ; ;

~ , j l i '

a p p e l l a n t

a n d

who

c a r r i e d on

h i s

t l n l b e r

l o g g l n : :

a c t l v 1 t l c , \

i-ulllu:

li*l,':/!!

1 I

h,<;

1 ' : , ,1

u n d e r , t h e name

of N.S.

Burmeister

and Sons.

I t appcnr . ,

t h . l t V.S.

I' , I I

' , ,

Burmeister and Sons had

annua

quo ta

o i t ~ ~ n b c r

J V J I Inl , lc

f o r

I , , ,

I ,

I :I,

, , I

f e l l i n g

i n t h e Tumut

a r e a

n d

t h a t

e a c h

v e a r

this

quotn I..'IS

x c n e r a l 1

il!'; '

! I : '

exhaus ted

about

the

month

o f

Novcnlber .

There

thcn

€ u r t h e r

! " + i

, ,

I ,

.	' ,	f e l l i n g work	wlth	N.S.	Rur rne l s t e r	and	S o n s a v . ~ l l a b l e	t o	t h e
,	I , ;

I '

r e s p o n d e n t

u n t l l

J a n u a r y

o f

t h e

following

y e a r .

I n

t h c

l n t e r l n l

t h v

1 ' 1

!L,,

! . , I

r e s p o n d e n t

habitually

t o o k

hls

h o l l d a y s .

~ n d l c , ~ t ~ o n

o f

t h e

'	,,j 1' , ,

~ , l s ~ l ~ l ,

I!,

e x t e n t

o f

t h e

t i m b e r

f e l l i n g

w o r k

w h l c h

t h e

r r s p o n d e n t

p e r f o r m c d

i j '1

, ,!! I

I t may be mentlon'ed

t h a t

f o r

t h e y e a r

e n d e d

.Tune

l 0 7 1

e a r n e d

$ 1 3 , 9 8 5 .

F o r

t h e

y e a r

c n d c d

June

1975

a rncd

$ 1 9 , 7 1 4 .

11:

t h e

n e x t

f l v e

m o n t h s

before

his

I n j u r y

h e

e a r n e d

9 1 0 , 1 7 9 .

wa5

n o t

s u g g e s t e d

t h a t

h a d

a n y

o t h e r

o c c u p n t l o n .

T h c

r c s p o n t l c n t

provided

and

ma1ntalnc-J

111s

own

cha in

s aws

.Ind

~ Y C : . .

Ilc

u.;c>d 111s

own

t r u c k

t o g e t

h ~ m ~ c l

and 111s

c q u ~ p m e n t

t o and

Crom

w o r h .

Ilc

also

p r o v i d e d

t h e

f u e l

f o r

the

t r u c k

a n d

t h e

c h a l n

S B ~ S .

I n

J a n u a r y

1 9 7 5 ,

a f f c r h l s L I S U ~ ~ : ~ I - C ~ ~

r rom

work

t he

r c s p o n d e n t

r e s u m e d

c u t t l n g

t i n t b c r

I n

Tumut

f o r

N.S.

R u r m c l \ t c r

a n d

S o n s .

T h e

a p p c l l a n t

W l l l l a m

B u r l n e i s t e r

was

a s s o c l a t c d

t t h

the

b u s l n e s s

o f

N.S.

B u r m e i s t e r

a n d

S o n s

u n t l l

s o m e

t i m e

d u r l n g

1 9 7 5 .

The

r e s p o n d c ~ ~ t

h a d

t h e n

known hlm

f o r

s o m e t h ~ n g

llke

t e n

y e a r s .

D u r l n g

1 9 7 5

t h e

a p p e l l a n t

l e f t

l'untut

and canlc

t o Canber ra

a n d ,

f a r a s t h e

r e s p o n d e n t

was

a w a r e ,

W l l l l a n t

R u l m e l s t e r ' s

b u s i n e s s

a s s o c i a t l o n

w i t h

N.S.

R u r m e i s t e r

a n d

Sons

c e a s e d .

T h e

r e s p o n d e n t ,

h o w e v e r ,

c o n t i n u e d

t o work

f o r N.S.

Burmeister

anJ Son!:

u n t i l

l a t e

O c t o b e r

\ $ h e n ,

a s

u s u a l ,

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t

h a d

c u t

m o s t

o f

t h a t

firm's

q u o t a

o f

t l m b e r .

a p p e l l a n t

a n d

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t

h a d

e a r l i e r discussed

o v c r

d r i n k i n ;L

h o t e l

i n Tumut

t h e p r o s p e c t

o f

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t

I o r k l n g

1 n C a n b e r r a

f o r

t h e

a p p c l l a n t .

The

rcspont lcn

s a i d "We

h a d

t a l k e d

a b o u t

i t :i

l i t t l c t l t h c f o r c ,

you

knob,

thc!

g o t s t u c k , a p p e l l a n t

y o u

know.

would

o v e r

a n d

c u t

somc

f o r

thcm".

T!Ie

s a l d

t h a t

m e n t i o n e d

t o

t h c ~ c s p ~ n d c n t

i n

th<-

< O ! I I - S C

0 :

t h i s d i s c u s s i o n

t h a t

t h e c u t t l n g

r a t e

Canber ra

was

5 l . l q per

t o n ,e

In Tumut

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t

had

b e e n

p a i d

t h c cubic

m e t r e .

'lot

l o n ~

a f t e i -

t h l s

c o n v c r s a t i o n

and

a t a

t i m c

whrn

the.

q u o t a

o i S . S .

Burmei s t e r

and

Sons

was

almost

a l l c u t ,

Noel

l 3 u r m e l s t e r

t o l d

t h c

r e s p o n d c n t

t h a t

t h e

z p p e l l a n t

was

g e t t l n g p r c t t y

s h o r t

o f

1 0 x 5

and

h e

s a i d

"Do

you

f e e l

l i k e

g o i n g

o v e r

a n d

c u t t i n s

5omc

t l r d > c r

f o r

, .

' ,	h im?" .	The	r e sponden t ,	because	he	had	p r n c t 1 c a l l y	n o t h l n g	t o	d o ,
'I

\ ; l : !

s a i d

t o

N o e l

Burmeister

"Yes,

why

n o t " .

T h c r c

was

n o

f u r t h c r

, , l 1,:

' , I .

,I i

d i s c u s s l o n

a t

t h a t

s t a g e b e t h 7 e e n

t h e

a p p e l l a n t

a n d

t h c

r c s ; l o n d e n t

I !

t h e

s p o n d c n t

s a i d

I n

e v i d e n c e

"the

t a l k i n g

v a s

donc

bctwccn

' I ,	Noel	and 1 3 1 1 1 .	I	was	J u s t t o l d	t o	h e	over	t h c r c on the hlonllajV
!

morning

r e a d y

t o

s t a r t " .

T h e

a p p c l l n n t

s a i d

t h a t

s e v e r a l

nights

b e f o r e

t h c

r e s p o n d c n t

came

t o C a n b e r r a

!)IS

f a t h e r

r a n g

h i m

and

asked him

I f I t would I)c a l r i g h t

f o r

the

r c s p o n d c n t

t o

come

o v e r

and

t h a t

t h e

a p p e l l a n t

s : i ld

i t

would

b e .

I t was

i n

t h e s c

c l r c u m s t a n c e s

t h a t

the

r e s p o n d e n t

t u r n c d

up w l t h morning o f Monday, 11 November 1 9 7 5 .

h i s

t r u c k

a n d

e q u i p m e n t

a t

t h e

Kowen

S t a t e F o r e s t o n

t h c

He was met by t h e

a p p e l l a n t

*h0

s a i d

t h a t

h e

was

cxpec t ing

h im.

Thcy

knew

c a c h

o t h c r

well.

'rhc

r e s p o n d e n t

was

a n

e x p e r ~ e n c e d

f a l l e r .

T h e

a p p e l l a n t

merely

s a i d

t o him "Well,

go up a n d

s t a r t

u p

t h e r e " ;

a n d ,

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t

s a l d

i n

c v i d e n c c ,

" T h a t

was

it".

T h c

a p p e l l a n t ,

o n

b c l n y

a s k e d

"And when &fr. P r a t t a r r i v e d

you gavc hlrr

a J

o f f a l l i n g t r e e s " ,

s a i d

" T h a t ' s

r i g h t ,

y e s " .

r e s p o n d c n t

b e g a n

c u t t i n g

t i m b e r

h e had

a lways

done.

The work h e

d i d

c o n s l s t c d

f e l l i n g

a n d

trlmrning	t rees which	he	t hen	measu	red	and	c u t	i n t o v a r i o u s	l c n g t h s .
I

They

were

t h e n c o l l e c t e d a n d

plackd

t h e

appellant's

t r u c k a n d

t a k c n

t o

a sawmlll.

Ilc h o r k e d

t h r o u g h o u t

t h a t

wcek

b c g i n n l n g

time

f r o m

t h e

Kowen S L a t c

r o r e s t

t o

Tumut W A L ~ .1bo11t tlbo

.lnJ

11.1lf

h o u r s .

T h e

r e s p o n d e n t

l e t u r n e d

t o worh

011

t l l c

f o l l o ~ l n ! ;

hlondrly.

He	w o r k c d u n t i l T h u r s d a y	a f t e r n o o n	when	he	writ b a c k	t o	T u ~ a u t	III
I
l

o r d e r

t o a t t e n d

t o

some r e p a i r s

t o

111s t r u c h .

B e f o r e

tic

l e f t

f o r

Tumut

t h e

a p p e l l a n t

g a v e

h i m

s l ~ n l l a r

c h e q u c

Cor

$ 3 6 6 . ; 9 .

Ilc

was

back a t work

i n

t h e

Kowcn

S t a t e F o r e s t

t h c

r o l l o w l n g

h1orlrlJ.y

.ind

' ,I,

wo'rhed

t h r o u g h

t lil

a b o u t

l u n c h t i m e

the

F r i d a y

when

lbL1~

[ : L v ' e ?

, '

a f u r t h e r l o l l o w l n g Monday

c h c q u c

T o r

$ 2 9 5 . 8 1 .

Ile

t h e n

r c t u l

nc3

t o

v o r k

O I I

t h e

s t a r t i n g a t abou t

7 . 3 0

a.111.

I t \\(is a t ~l l rot l t noon

of t h a t d a y 1-01.1ownlg the a c c ~ d e n t

t h a t

r c c c ~ v c d

t h e

I n j u r y

t he

\ u l ) J c c t

o r

t h c

c l ~ l 1 , 1 .

was

p a l d

$ 2 1 9 . 4 6

111

r e s p e c t

t l lnl ler

w h ~ c h

hc had c u t bc fo rc 111s a c c ~ d c n t . I t h ~ s

L o t a l

e a r n i n g s

w h ~ l c

worklng

f o r

t h e a p p e l l a n t a r c a l l o c a t e d

t o

t h r c e week

p e r i o d

the.,

a v e r a g e

a b o u t

$ 3 9 0

pcr

week.

'141s

a v e r a g e

y e c k l y

e a r n i n g s

d u r i n g

t h e p r e v l o u s

f i n a n c i a l

yc'ar

wzth

N.S .

B u r m e l s t e r

a n d

Sons

had

been

a b o u t

$380

p c r

week.

I t

a p p e a r s

t h a t

t h e

r c \ p o n d e n t

w3s

working

f u l l t l m e a t c u t t i n g

t l m b e r

f o r

t h e a p p e l l a n t .

A t

t h e h e a r i n g b e € o r e

t h c

l e a r n e d C h l c f M a g l s t r a t e ,

who

c o n s t i t u t e d

t h e C o u r t

o f

P e t t y S e s s i o n s ,

t h c

a p p e l l a n t

c a l l e d n o

c v l d e n c e .

The

r e s p o n d e n t

was

t h e n g ~ v c n l cavc

t o r e - o p e n h i s c a s c ,

tc rn ls

as t o

c o s t s ,

a n d

c a l l e d

t h e

a p p e l l a n t .

T h e r e

was

n o

c o n f l l c t

b e t w c c n

t h e

e v l d c n c e o f

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t

a n d

t h e

e v i d c n c c

o f

t h e a p p e l F l a g l s t r a t e

l a n t .

I t

1 s

a p p a r e n t

f r o m

t h c

r e a s o n s

o f

t h e

l c a r n c d

C h i e f

t h a t h e

was

n o t

t r o u b l e d

b y a n y q u e s t i o n

r e l a t l n g

t o

t h e

c r e d l b i l l t y

t h e

t e s t l m o n y

p l a c e d

b e f o r e

h i m .

T h e

t a s k

t o

w h i c h

h e

a d d r e s s e d

hlmself

was

t h e a n a l y s i s o f

f a c t s

e s t a b l l s h e d

h:,

u n d i s p u t e d e v l d e n c e a n d

t h e p r o p e r c o n s t r d c t ~ o n

t o

b e place I

uIlon

t h e m .

l e a r n e d

C h l c i

N a g i s t r n t e

c o n c l u d e d

t h a t

I t

I \ < I S not

p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n

c lcar

v iew

what

were

t h e p r e c l s c a r ~ ~ n g r m c n : ~

o r t h e b e t w e e n

t e r m s t h e p a r t i e s

o f

t h e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n

t h e p a r t ~ c s

i n t e r

s e

.1nd

and

t h c

sawmiller

o r w h a t p a r t

was

playcc1 by

Mr.

Noel

Burnels ter

i a e f f e c t i n g

t r a n s f e r

o f

t h e

r c sponc lc~~ t

from

t r ee

c u t t i n g a t

Tumut

t o c n r r y m g ' o u t

t h a t

t a s k

I n

t h e

howcn

S t a t e

F o r e s t .

C o n s e q u e n t l y

t h e

l e a r n e d

C h i c f

M n g i s t r a t c

n o t

< a t l > f l c c !

t h a t

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t h a d e s t a b l i s h e d

t h a t

was

a t

t h c

r v 1 c v z ; l t

t1mc

d i s i n l s s e d

t h c a p p l i c a t l o n .

I n

t h e

S u p r e m c

C o u r t

o f

t h e

Australian

C a p i t a l

' T c r r l t o r y

J o s k e

J .

s a i d

t h a t

111

h l s o p l n i o n

t h e r c

c l e a r l y

was

c o n t r . l c t

b e t w e e n

t h e

p l c s e n t

r e s p o n d e n t

a n d

the

p r e s e n t a p p e l l a n t

t u

f c l 1

t imber

and

t h ~ t

h e p r e s e n t

respondent's

cast

c:i1:1e

c l e a r l y 1 . 1 t h 1 n

S. G (3A) .

The

f ' l c t s ,

a s

s r t o u t

a b o v c ,

d e m o n b t r a t c

~ n y o p l n l o n

t h a t

t h e

view

o f

Joske

J .

was

p l a i n l y c o r r e c t

a n d

t h e v ~ e w

o f

t h e

l c a r n e d

C h i e f

M a g i s t r a t c

was

p l a i n l y

l n c o r r m t .

J o s k c .J.

o b s e r v e d ,

t h e

e v l d c n c c

1 s

all

one

way.

Therc

1 s

n o

e v ~ d e n c c

o f

any

c o n t r a c t u a l

r e l a t i o n s h i p

b e t w e e n

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t

: ~ n d

t h e

s a w m i l l e r .

'The

b a s a l

f a c t s a r e t h a t

t i m b e r

m e r c h a n t

o f f e r c d

t o

pay

t i m b e r

c u t t e r

$ 1 . 1 5

p e r

t o n n c

f o r

c u t t l n g

t l m b c r

I n

p a r t i c u l a r

l o c a l i t y .

T h e

t i m b e r

c u t t e r

a c c c p t c c l

t h ~ s

o f f e r

comlng

t o

the

d c s l s n a t e d

l o c d l l t y

a n d

c u t t i n g

substantial

m o u n t

o f

t l m b e r .

The

t imbcr

m e r c h a n t

t o o k

t h e

t l m b e r

a n d

p a i d

t h e

tlmber

c u t t e r

f o r

i t

, I t

t h e

a g r e e d r a t e .

This ,

i n

c l a s s i c

terms

o f

o f f e r ,

a c c e p t a n c e

a n d

p e r f o r m a n c e ,

p o i n t s

c o n t l u s i v e l y

t o

t he

e x i s t e n c e o f

c o n t r a c t

be tween

t hem.

Thc

bn t r ac t ,

l ooked a t

from

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t ' s

p o i n t

o f	v~ev: , E n l l s	n a t u r a l l y	enough	w i t h l n	t h e d e s c r i p t i o n	o f	a	c o n t r a c t
/

I , . I . ,

C o l l i n s v.

Commiss ioner

For

Rai lways

(1933)

W . C . K .

(N.S.W.)

1 7 1 ,

'decision

o f

t h e F u l l C o u r t

o f

t he

Supreme

Cour t

o f

New

S o u t h

Walc..

T h a t c a s e Compensat ion

was

con'ccrned

w l t h a

c l a i m

u n d e r

s . 6 ( 5 )

o f

t h c h o r k c r s

Act

1926-1929

(N.S.W.)

which

d e c ~ n c d

c o n t r d c t o r

t o

b r

v o l k c r

e m p l o y c d

principal

1 f

the

p r lnc l l l c l l

111 t h c

C O I I ~ : , ~

o f

o r

f o r

t h e p u r p o s c s

o f

111s

t r a d e o r b u s l n c s s

c n t c r s

i n t o

c o n t r a c t

W I th

t h e c o n t r a c t o r u n d e r w h i c h t h e - c o n t r a c t o r a g r c e s " t o

. supp ly

s l e e p e r s

. . . . ' I .

The

R n ~ l v a y

C o m m i 5 s l o n c r s

l s s u c d

o n

r e q u e s t

t o

t h c

a p p l i c a n t

c a r d

l n d l c a t l n g

t h a t h c

s l e e p e r - g c t t c r o f

whom

I. '

t h e

d e p a r t m e n t

a p p r o v e d .

d p p l l c n n t

wa5

n o t

r e q u l r e d

t o

s u p p l y

any minimum number o f sleepers.

T h e

a p p l l c a n t

was

i n l u r e d

t v h i l e

c u t t i n g

t m b e r

€or t h e

s l e e p e r s .

H a r v e y

A . C . J . ,

w i t h

whom

Jamcs

and

Roger s

JJ.

a g r e e d ,

s a i d

a t

p . 1 8 1 : -

"On

t h e

f a c e

o f

t h i n g s ,

i t

i s

s i m p l e

c a s e

i n

w h i c h

p e r s o n a p p l l e s

t o b e

r e c o g n i s c d

p e r s o n

from

whom

s l e e p c r s ,

t h e y

a r e

t e n d e r e d ,

wlll

acccp tcc l ,

a n d

t h c

s l e c p c r - g c t t c r

n e v e r

i m a g i n e s

t h a t

receipt

o€ s u c h J

c a r d hc

was

u n d e r

a n y o b l l g n t i o n

t o

cut

s l n g l e

s l e e p e r " .

Consequently i t was held

t h a t

t h ;

a p p l i c a n t

hns

n o t

c o n t r a c t o r

who

h a d

a g r e e d

t o

s u p p l y

s l e e p c r s

t o

t hc

d e p a r t m e n t

a n d

h i s

c l a i m

f a l l c d .

Mr.

F o s t c r

s u b m i t t e d

t h a t

p a r l t y

o f

r e a s o n i n g

t h e

r c s p o n d e n t

I n t h l s c ~ s c

w a s

n o t

u n d c r

a n y

o b l l g a t l o n

t o

the

a p p e l l a n

t o f c l l

s i n g l e

t r c e a n d

h a d

t h c r e f o r c n e v c r c n t e r e d

i n t o

p e r s u a d e d

i t .

For

t h e s e

r c a s o n s

c o n s i d e r

t h a t

t hc

a p p e a l

S I I U U ~ J

d i s m l s s e d .

a g r e e

13 t h c

o r d e r s

p r o p o s e 2

h y

S m i t h e r s

J .

N ~I I I I I IO J

[1978] FCA 17

14 Mar 1978