Burmeister, WIlliam James v Pratt, Gordon Augustin

[1978] FCA 17

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

i

.. .

I N TllE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA !

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY N o . 1 2 of 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

of 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

A N I

-

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 1 14 March 1378

W E R E MADE t 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 I

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

d

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

2.

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

d

and the appellant came to Canberra and started in a similar

business there on his own account under the name of U . J .

I .

3.

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. He 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

S)

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

and cut them into various lengths. Provided he supplied

4.

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

J

the sawmiller to whom the locs of fallen trees would ultimately

be delivered by the appellant. He pointed out that on the

'.

5.

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 a 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 or t he t e r m s of agreement

as 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 a 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 or 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 or 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 .

It is 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 to the c ruc ia l ques t io r ' whe the r t he re

w a s a 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 ) of the Ordxn,mce).

On appeal Joslce J. had no 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 . On reviewing

the ovidence g iven before tha Nagis t ra te the learned Judge he ld

that t h e r e w a s such a 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 to the knowledge of each par ty of the circumstances of

J

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 .

It is c l e a r that the a p p e l l a n t knew that the respondent w a s a

m a n whose occupat ion w a s that of f e l l i n g t r e e s . He knew t h a t

the resp0nder . t had worked regular ly in 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 ou t

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 a 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 of t h e c l a s s of 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 ' . On Monday morning of 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 u p 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 a r a t e

workad out by 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 .

r- '\.' .

In 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 ,

J

'Yes' . Later he w a s asked, 'And o f cou r se i n t h i s j o b , I

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 ' . He 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. We

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

d

to felling trees and that the appellant accepted	that
Invitation.

8.

The respondent ' s working habl t s bomg known, t h e r e b e i n g a

p r i ce a r r anged and a conternplatod duration of the t ime dur ing

whlch the respondent would work with the appellant, a 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 to f e l l t r e e s f o r

the appel lan t 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 a contemplated per iod.

There was no unce r t a in ty a f f ec t ing the ag reemen t o f a kind which

nnght go t o t h e v e r y e x i s t e n c e o f 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 to do ' a c e r t a i n amount

w i t h i n a 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 to 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 ta in ly he agreed to 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 to t e l l t h e t r u t h .

We 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 t 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 ' an o b l i g a t i o n t o do 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 of h i 5 c o n t e n t i o n h e 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. He

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 no 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 to 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 by them. Such an

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

provjs lons of s:6(3A).

We 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 a

mere nrrangement between the pflrt ies hut a 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 in 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 of 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 of 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 , a5 Josko J. 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 be

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 of the

compensat ion to be awarded to the rospondent . Before this

Court a q u e s t i o n a r o Q e as t o whether His Honour had power t o

make t ha t Orde r bu t i t is 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.

It fo l lows tha t the Cour t upholds a l l t h e Orders made by His

Honour and d iamiases th i s appea l wi th cos ts .

> ? .

1 , ' IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

1

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL. TERRITORY j N O . 1: o f 1'377

DISTRICT REGISTRY I

, 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 I

AN

D -

-- GORDON AUCIJSTIK PR.2TT

Rcspondcnt

; '

.	,',
.-. J:EASONS FOR JUDG3IEh'T COKNOR, J.

14 March 1 9 7 5 C a n b e r r a

k

.	I
, ,
: ,!l1	I , T h i s 1s an appcal f r o m t h e S:~prc~ne C o u r t A t h e o f s 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 a 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 . T h e r e s p o n d e n t i s a 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 a 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 on 1 Deccmbcr 1 9 7 5 when

he was s t r u c k by 3 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 a 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 a c o n t r a c t w i t h h i m

: , m % , , ' I I

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 1s r c l r v a n t t o t h l . ; m. l t tc r

! 1.j U!,, ,

I ,

I . I r e a d s as f o l l o w s : -

, I '

(a) 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 as " 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 OT b u s i n e s s e n t e r s I n t o a 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 as " 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 of t h ~ s O r d i n a n c e ,

be deemed t o b e work ing unde r a 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 be deemed t o b e t h c

e m p l o y e r o f 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 d I n t o such

a 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 as a 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 no 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 .

I

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 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 a t i m b e r c u t t e r i n t h c 'Tumut a r e a in t h c S t a t e

m : ,

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 , :	I f o r a 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 , \ , ~ t i-ulllu:

li*l,':/!! 1 I

h,<; 1 ' : , ,1 I 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 m.

I ~ ' , , Burmeister and Sons had an annua l quo ta o i t ~ ~ n b c r J V J I Inl , lc f o r

I , , ,

I ,

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

I !

! I : ' I

exhaus ted about the month o f Novcnlber . There thcn no € 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 I !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 . As an ~ n d l c , ~ t ~ o n o f t h e

' ,,j 1' , ,

~ , l s ~ l ~ l , I!,

I 11 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 11

, ,!! 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 30 .Tune l 0 7 1 h e 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 50 June 1975 hc 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 . I t wa5

n o t s u g g e s t e d t h a t he 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 f 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 , as 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 . T h e 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 a 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

l

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, ~f thc!

g o t s t u c k , a p p e l l a n t y o u know. would I EO 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 he 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 in 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 by 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

l '

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 : ! I , 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 ! As t h e r 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 , as 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 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 " . T h e 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 as

h e had a lways done. The work h e d i d c o n s l s t c d o f 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 on 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 a t

.

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 :I 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 a 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 on 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 on the F r i d a y when he 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 hc 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 .

hc was p a l d $ 2 1 9 . 4 6 111 r e s p e c t oE 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 a 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 ,

on tc rn ls as t o c o s t s , a n d he 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 o f 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 . T h e 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 a c lcar v iew of 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 a 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 w a s 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 he 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 d 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 in ~ 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 . As 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 a t i m b e r m e r c h a n t o f f e r c d t o pay a 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 a 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 by 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 a 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 a c o n t r a c t

I

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) 7 W . C . K . (N.S.W.) 1 7 1 ,

a '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

a v o l k c r e m p l o y c d by a 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 n 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 a c a r d l n d l c a t l n g t h a t h c H ~ S a 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 . T h e 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 Ha l se 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 a s i m p l e c a s e i n w h i c h

a 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 as a p e r s o n from

whom s l e e p c r s , ~f t h e y a r e t e n d e r e d , wlll be 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 on 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 R

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 a 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 by 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 a s i n g l e t r c e a n d he 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 a

p e r s u a d e d by i t .

For t h e s e r c a s o n s I 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 . I 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 .