Commonwealth v Matheson - [1955] HCA 24

THE COMMONWEALTH MATHESON

RESPONDENT. Workers' Compensation-Federal employee-Injury-Nature-Another injury sus-

tained by employee in same accident causing loss-Compensation-Determina- tion-Statutory provisions-Mandatory-Commonwealth Employees' Compen- sation Act 1930-1950, 88. 9, 12, 20, First Schedule, pars. 1 (c), 3 (b), Third Schedule-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), S. 73 (ii)-Judiciary Act 1903-1950, 8. 39 (2) (b)-District Courts Act 1912-1953 (N.S.W.), S. 142.

The application of S. 12 of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1950 and the Third Schedule thereto is not confined to the case where the total effect of an accident satisfies a description found in one of the items of the schedule. If by an accident an injury is sustained which causes any such loss as is mentioned in the schedule or in sub-s. (5) or sub-s. (6) of S. 12, and the other conditions of that section are satisfied, a lump sum becomes payable by force of the section and it is irrelevant that by the same accident the employee may have sustained another injury which itself has caused a loss specified in the Third Schedule, or in respect of which compensation has become payable under S. 9 and the First Schedule or in respect of which no compensation at all is payable.

APPEAL from the District Court, Sydney, New South Wales.

A claim was made to the Commissioner for Employees' Com- pensation by George Matheson for compensation under the Common- wealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1950, in respect of injury sustained by him on 18th September 1951 during the course of his employment as senior carpenter in the Postmaster-General's Department.

The evidence before the delegate of the commissioner showed that Matheson had sustained an injury to his left leg which had caused the permanent loss of some part of the efficient use of that leg to above the knee for the purposes of his employment at the

93 CLR 404

date of the injury. It further showed that partial incapacity for work had arisen from the injury to his right leg and hip, but it did not show that in respect of his right leg Matheson suffered any of the injuries specified in the Third Schedule to the Act because the injury affected his right hip and was, therefore, more than an MATHESON. injury to Matheson's right leg to above the knee.

The delegate of the commissioner determined, on 7th July 1954 and 26th August 1954, that Matheson sustained personal injury by accident arising out of or in the course of his employment by the Commonwealth on 18th September 1951, namely a fractured left tibia, involving the knee joint, resulting in a twenty per cent loss of the efficient use of his left leg above the knee in and for the pur- poses of his employment, and he was thereby entitled to compensa- tion under S. 12 and the Third Schedule in the sum of £187 10s. Od.; and that compensation was payable to Matheson on the basis of five per cent of his weekly pay…

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.

Continue reading Commonwealth v Matheson

Details

AGLC: Commonwealth v Matheson [1955] HCA 24
Case: [1955] HCA 24
Decision Date: 5 May 1955

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Commonwealth appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the District Court of New South Wales concerning a workers' compensation claim brought by George Matheson, a federal employee. Matheson had sustained injuries to both his left and right legs in a single accident at work. The dispute centred on the proper application of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1950, specifically sections 9 and 12, and the relevant schedules, to determine the compensation payable for Matheson's injuries.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether section 12 of the Act, which provides for lump sum compensation for specific scheduled injuries, was applicable even when an employee sustained multiple injuries in the same accident, including injuries not listed in the Third Schedule. The court was required to determine if the application of section 12 was confined only to cases where the entirety of the accident's consequences fit a scheduled injury, or if it applied to any identifiable scheduled injury sustained, irrespective of other concurrent injuries.

The High Court reasoned that the application of section 12 and its Third Schedule is not limited to situations where the total effect of an accident precisely matches a scheduled injury. Instead, if an accident causes an injury that results in a loss described in the schedule or in subsections (5) or (6) of section 12, and the other conditions of that section are met, a lump sum payment is mandated. It is irrelevant if the same accident also caused another injury, whether that other injury is also scheduled, compensable under section 9 and the First Schedule, or not compensable at all. The court found that the District Court judge had erred in his interpretation by not applying section 12 to the injury to Matheson's left leg, which resulted in a significant loss of efficient use.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the District Court's award. It ordered that Matheson receive a lump sum payment under the Third Schedule for the permanent loss of efficient use of his left leg, calculated at 55% of the scheduled amount, totalling £515 12s. 6d. Additionally, compensation for the injury to his right hip was to be paid under the First Schedule, based on a 15% incapacity for work, as agreed by the parties.

Orders