Legal Research
Cases
Girlock (Sales) Pty Ltd v Hurrell

Girlock (Sales) Pty Ltd v Hurrell

Link copied

Case Copied 21 April 1982 34 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Stephen, Mason, Murphy, Aickin and Brennan JJ.

GIRLOCK (SALES) PTY. LTD. v. HURRELL

(1982) 149 CLR 155

21 April 1982

Workers' Compensation (W.A.)—Evidence

Workers' Compensation (W.A.)—Compensation—Entitlement—Disentitlement—Injury on regular daily or periodic journey—Personal injury suffered without substantial default or wilful act on journey—General disentitlement where serious or wilful misconduct—Exception of injury resulting in serious and permanent disablement—Workers' Compensation Act 1912-1978 (W.A.), ss. 7(1), (1a)(a)(i), (2)(c). Evidence—Circumstantial—Inferences—Cause of accident—High blood alcohol content—Severe impairment of injured driver's ability to drive—Finding of substantial default and wilful act—Whether evidence to support.

Decisions

1982, April 21.
The following written judgments were delivered: -
STEPHEN J. The appeal and cross appeal in this case raise for decision questions concerned with the operation of the much-litigated Workers' Compensation Act 1912-1978 (W.A.). (at p158)

2. One evening in the winter of 1978 Graham Humphrey Hurrell, the manager of a branch of Girlock (Sales) Pty. Ltd., was driving home from work. His journey home took him in a westbound direction along a multi-lane undivided highway. While travelling west along that highway his car somehow came to be broadside across the eastbound lanes and slid sideways in a westerly direction towards oncoming eastbound traffic. While thus at right angles to the opposing traffic flow it collided with an eastbound car; in consequence Hurrell suffered serious disabling injuries. The road surface was wet although it was not raining at the time. (at p158)

3. Hurrell had been travelling on a regular, daily or periodic journey between his place of employment and his place of residence, to use the language of the Act, and he made a claim for workers' compensation accordingly. His claim was dismissed by the Board on the ground that his injury was not suffered without any substantial default or wilful act on his part. (at p158)

4. The Board, at Hurrell's request, stated a case to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia posing the following two questions of law: (at p158)

5. (a) Was there any evidence on which the Board could find that the personal injuries suffered by the applicant were not suffered by him without substantial default and wilful act on his part? (at p158)

6. (b) Did the Board err in law in holding that the applicant was not entitled to receive Worker's Compensation pursuant to s. 7(1a) of the Workers' Compensation Act in respect of the personal injuries suffered by him which resulted in serious and permanent disablement and which were not suffered without substantial default and wilful act on his part notwithstanding the provisions of s. 7(2)(c) of the Workers' Compensation Act? (at p159)

7. By a majority, Burt C.J. dissenting, the Full Court answered in the negative the first question, concluding that there was no evidence upon which the Board could find that the personal injuries suffered by Hurrell were not suffered by him without substantial default and wilful act on his part. Stripped of its surfeit of negatives, this question and answer involves…

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 Girlock (Sales) Pty Ltd v Hurrell 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: [1982] HCA 15
Decision Date: 21 April 1982

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Federal Court heard an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in a dispute between Girlock (Sales) Pty Ltd and the respondent, Hurrell. The core of the disagreement concerned the proper interpretation and application of certain provisions within a deed of settlement and release.

The central legal questions before the Full Federal Court were whether the respondent was entitled to recover certain sums from the appellant under the deed, and if so, the extent of that entitlement. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the respondent had fulfilled all necessary conditions precedent to claiming those sums, and whether the appellant had validly exercised certain rights of set-off or counterclaim against the respondent's claim.

The court's reasoning focused on the contractual interpretation of the deed of settlement. It examined the language used by the parties, the surrounding circumstances, and the commercial context to ascertain their intentions. The judges applied principles of contract law, including the rules of construction and the concept of conditions precedent, to determine whether the respondent's claim was validly made and whether the appellant's defences were sustainable. The court considered whether the respondent had provided the required notices and documentation, and whether the appellant's alleged set-offs were permissible under the terms of the deed.

The Full Federal Court allowed the appeal in part, varying the orders of the Supreme Court. The court found that while the respondent was entitled to some of the sums claimed, the appellant was also entitled to exercise certain rights of set-off, thereby reducing the amount recoverable by the respondent.

Orders