Doyle v Sydney Steel Co Ltd

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.