Cribb v Korn - [1911] HCA 9

12 C.L.R.]

OF AUSTRALIA.

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

CRIBB .

A p p e l l a n t ;

D e f e n d a n t ,

AND

KORN . ..

R e s p o n d e n t .

P l a in t if f ,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

QUEENSLAND.

Employer and Workman—Compensation— Workers’ Compensation Act 1905 {Qd.), H. C. o f A.

(5 Edw. VII. No. 26), sec. 10*—Contract for the execution of work hy or under

1911.

a contractor— Work part of, or a process in, the trade or business of a principal

'——̂•

— Tenancy at wilt—Licence—Partnership.

B r is b a n e ,

A pril 25, 26,

*Sec. 10 of the Wo/rkers’ Compensation

“ Provided that his liability shall

27.

Act 1905 (Queensland) provides that :—■

be presumed until the contrary is

shown ;

Griffith C.J.,

“ In any case where any person (here inafter called the ‘ principal ’) contracts

“ (4) In the case of sub-contracts, the

Barton and

with any other person (hereinafter expression ‘ principal ’ shall extend to

O’Connor JJ .

called the ‘ contractor ’) for the execuand include not only the origiflal prin

tion of any work by or under the concipal, but also each contractor who

tractor, and the contractor employs constitutes himself a principal with re

any worker thereon, the following prospect to a sub-contractor by contracting

visions shall apply :—with him for the execution by him of

“ (1) Both the principal and the con tractor shall be deemed to be employers

the whole or any part of the work ;

and the expression ‘ contractor ’ shall

of the worker, and shall be jointly and extend to and include not only the

severally liable to pay to the worker original contractor, but also each sub

any compensation which the contractor contractor ;

if he were the sole employer would be

“ Provided that each principal’s

liable to pay under this A ct;

right of indemnity shall be a right over

“ (2) The principal shall be entitled

against every contractor standing be

to be indemnified by the contractor tween him and the contractor by

against the principal’s liability under whom the worker was employed at the

this section ;

time when the accident occurred, and

“ (3) The principal shall not be liable

including such last mentioned con

under this section except in cases where

tractor,

the work to be executed under the con

“ (5) The mode in which any right

tract, and in which the worker is emof indemnification arising under this

ployed, is directly a part of, or a proAct may be enforced may be prescribed

cess in the trade or business of the by regulations.”

principal;

VOL. XII.

206 HIGH COURT

[1911.

H. C. O F A.

K. was engaged by R. to assist in agricultural or pastoral work at a

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 Cribb v Korn

Details

AGLC: Cribb v Korn [1911] HCA 9
Case: [1911] HCA 9
Decision Date: 27 April 1911

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Cribb v Korn*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning workers' compensation. The applicant, Cribb, sought compensation under the *Workers' Compensation Act 1905* (Qld) for injuries sustained while performing work. The respondent was Korn, the employer.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the applicant was a "workman" within the meaning of the *Workers' Compensation Act 1905* (Qld) at the time of his injury. This determination hinged on the nature of the contract between Cribb and Korn and whether it established an employer-employee relationship or an independent contractor arrangement.

The Court's reasoning focused on the degree of control the employer retained over the worker. It was held that if the employer retained the right to control the manner in which the work was done, the worker would be considered a "workman" for the purposes of the Act. Conversely, if the worker was engaged to achieve a specific result and was free to determine the method of achieving that result, they would likely be an independent contractor. The Court applied established common law principles for distinguishing between employees and independent contractors, emphasising the importance of the employer's right to control the details of the work.

The High Court found that the contract between Cribb and Korn did not confer upon Korn the necessary degree of control to establish an employer-employee relationship. Consequently, Cribb was not considered a "workman" under the Act. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders