Legal Research
Cases
Doyle v Sydney Steel Co Ltd

Doyle v Sydney Steel Co Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 15 December 1936 37 min read

Contents

On this page

56 CLR 545

SYDNEY STEEL COMPANY LIMITED

RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Workers' Compensation-Injury- Casual worker "__" Average weekly earnings

ComputationDiscontinuous employment-Normal incidents of the industry

-Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1929 (N.S.W.) (No. 15 of 1926-No. 36 of 1929), secs. 9, 14 (a), (e)*.

The appellant was a boiler-maker who was injured in the course of his employ- Aug. 18, 19; ment with the respondent. During the period of twelve months preceding the date of the injury he had worked for a number of employers in the Starke, Dixon, industry at intervals of varying lengths; he had had six periods of employment, The Workers' Compensation Act

being earned by a person in the same 1926-1929 (N.S.W.), by sec. 14, pro-

grade, employed at the same work, by vides - For the purposes of the pro-

the same employer visions of this Act relating to earnings

average weekly earnings of a casual and `average weekly earnings of a

worker, who has worked under succes- worker, the following rules shall be observed :-(a) Average weekly earn-

more employers in the same industry, ings shall be computed in such manner

shall be computed as if his earnings as is best calculated to give the rate

under all such contracts, for a period per week at which the worker was being

of twelve months preceding the injury remunerated: Provided that where by

or any less period he may have been engaged in the industry, were earnings during which the worker has been in

in the employment of the employer the employment of his employer, or the

for whom he was working at the time terms of the employment, it is imprac-

of the injury. Such average weekly ticable at the date of the injury to

earnings shall be deemed to be not less compute the rate of remuneration,

than the weekly living wages declared regard may be had to the average

by the statutory authority to be pay- weekly amount which, during the twelve

able in the area in which the injury months previous to the injury, was

56 CLR 546

amounting in the aggregate to fifteen weeks and one day, and he earned £73 14s. 3d. He was paid on an hourly basis at the "casual" rate. For each week of forty-four hours' work he received £4 17s., and he claimed compensation under the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1929 (N.S.W.) at this amount per week as being his "average weekly earnings." There was evidence that about the time of the appellant's injury there were periods of slackness in the boiler-making trade with consequent unemployment. The Workers' Com- pensation Commission found that the appellant was a "casual worker," and, applying the provisions of sec. 14 (e) of the Act, deemed his average weekly earnings" to be not less than the weekly living wages of £3 7s. 6d. declared by the State statutory authority, and his compensation during the period of incapacity was fixed at that rate. This decision was affirmed by…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Doyle v Sydney Steel Co Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1936] HCA 66
Decision Date: 15 December 1936

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Francis Irwin Doyle, a boiler-maker, appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had affirmed a determination by the Workers' Compensation Commission. Doyle had suffered an injury in the course of his employment with Sydney Steel Co. Ltd. The central dispute concerned the calculation of his "average weekly earnings" for the purpose of determining his compensation entitlement under the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1929 (N.S.W.). Doyle had worked intermittently for various employers in the boiler-making industry during the twelve months preceding his injury, earning a total of £73 14s. 3d. over fifteen weeks and one day of work. The Commission had found him to be a "casual worker" and, applying section 14(e) of the Act, deemed his average weekly earnings to be not less than the declared weekly living wage of £3 7s. 6d., which was significantly lower than his actual earnings in weeks worked.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Workers' Compensation Commission had erred in law in its computation of Doyle's average weekly earnings. Specifically, the court was required to determine the correct interpretation and application of sections 9 and 14 of the Workers' Compensation Act, particularly the meaning of "average weekly earnings" and "casual worker," and whether the Commission had correctly applied section 14(e) or should have applied section 14(a) to calculate Doyle's earnings at £4 17s. per week, representing his earnings in a normal working week.

The High Court was equally divided. Starke and Dixon JJ. were of the opinion that the Commission's decision should be upheld. Starke J. found that the Commission was entitled to conclude that Doyle was a "casual worker" and that section 14(e) provided the most appropriate method for calculating his average weekly earnings, deeming the living wage of £3 7s. 6d. to be the correct rate. Dixon J. analysed the provisions of section 14, including the complexities of calculating average weekly earnings for discontinuous employment and the specific application of section 14(e) to casual workers with successive contracts of service. He concluded that the Commission's finding that it was not impracticable to compute remuneration and its subsequent calculation, which resulted in a rate not exceeding the minimum prescribed by section 14(e), were not demonstrably wrong in law, especially given the evidence of significant unemployment incident to the trade.

Conversely, Evatt and McTiernan JJ. were of the opinion that the Commission's decision was erroneous in law. They considered that, based on the admitted facts, Doyle's average weekly earnings should have been calculated at £4 17s., reflecting the rate prescribed by the relevant industrial award for a normal working week, and that the Commission had misapplied section 14(e). As the court was equally divided, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was affirmed.

Orders