Davidson v Mould

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeal arose from a claim for workers' compensation by Maxwell Walter Mould, a young employee, against his employers, George Davidson and Sidney Smith, trading as Davidson & Smith. Mould sought compensation for the loss of his left eye, which he sustained while having his midday meal in the employers' workshop. The employers denied liability, arguing that the injury did not arise out of or in the course of Mould's employment.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Workers' Compensation Commission's finding that Mould's injury arose "in the course of employment" within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1942 (N.S.W.). Mould was injured when, experiencing difficulty opening a bottle of non-intoxicating beverage purchased for his meal, he used a vice in the workshop and struck the crown seal with his fist, causing a piece to fly off and strike him in the eye. The Commission had found that the injury was received during the midday meal interval, which was permitted to be taken on the employers' premises, and that the act of opening the bottle was a reasonable act incidental to partaking in the meal, thus not constituting a break in the course of employment.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Rich, Starke, McTiernan, and Williams JJ., held that there was evidence upon which the Workers' Compensation Commission could find that the injury arose "in the course of employment." Latham C.J., dissenting, took the view that while Mould was permitted to be on the premises during his meal break, the specific act of opening the bottle in the manner he did was not sufficiently connected to his employment to be considered incidental to it. The majority, however, considered that the worker's presence on the premises during the meal break was due to the conditions of employment, encouraged by the employers, and that the act of opening the bottle was a reasonable incident of taking the meal in that permitted location. The Court ultimately affirmed the Supreme Court's decision that there was evidence to support the Commission's finding.