Dewan Singh and Kim Singh t/as Krambach Service Station v Wickenden

Dewan Singh and Kim Singh, trading as Krambach Service Station, appealed against a decision by an arbitrator that affirmed a claim by their employee, Wickenden, for compensation in respect of injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The appellants argued that the arbitrator erred in concluding that the accident had a real and substantial connection with Wickenden's employment, given that it occurred at night while he was driving home from work. Wickenden contended that the darkness, due to his employment requiring him to work late, contributed to the accident, in which he collided with a vehicle swerving to avoid cattle on the road. The court was tasked with determining whether the worker had established a real and substantial connection between the employment and the accident, and if it was open to infer that the darkness played a role in the accident.

The court considered whether there was a real and substantial connection between Wickenden's employment and the accident, as required by section 10(3A) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court found that it was open to the arbitrator to draw inferences, and that it was reasonable to infer that the darkness, resulting from the employment requirement to work late, played a role in the accident. The court held that the worker had established a real and substantial connection between the employment and the accident. The court further held that the appellants' argument that the arbitrator had not considered the worker's failure to have headlights on was without merit, as the worker had provided evidence that his headlights were functioning at the time of the accident.

The appeal was dismissed, and the arbitrator's determination was confirmed. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, assessed at $2,530 plus GST. The court held that it was open to the arbitrator to infer that the darkness, due to the employment requirement to work late, played a role in the accident, and that the worker had established a real and substantial connection between the employment and the accident. The court found that the appellants' argument that the arbitrator had not considered the worker's failure to have headlights on was without merit, as the worker had provided evidence that his headlights were functioning at the time of the accident.