THE COMMONWEALTH Workers' Compensation-Injury arising out of and in the course of the employment'
-Incident of employment-Federal employee- Death- Cause-Surrounding circumstances-Proof-Lack of evidence-Inference-Claim by widow refused- Magistrates court-High Court--Special leave to appeal-Application refused in the circumstances- Federal jurisdiction-State courts-Statutory promisions- Effect-Presumption-Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1954, ss. 9 (1), 20, First Schedule-The Magistrates Courts Act 1921 to 1954 (Q.), SS. 2, 4, 7, 11 (3)-Judiciary Act 1903-1955, SS. 35, 39.
Having regard to the purposes of S. 39 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1955 and its basal character in matters concerning the federal jurisdiction of State courts, such a provision as S. 20 of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1954 should be treated as implying an assumption that the general nature of the federal jurisdiction of State courts is fixed by its provisions. In other words, S. 20 should be interpreted in connexion with S. 39 and under- stood as meaning to enable the State courts which it mentions to give the relief it prescribes on the implied presumption that they will exercise federal jurisdiction as under S. 39.
A stipendiary magistrate in Brisbane, exercising jurisdiction under S. 20 of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1954, refused com- pensation to the applicant and her children in respect of the death on a railway line of her husband and their father. The magistrate found expressly that there was no evidence as to what the deceased, an employee of the Postmaster- General camped with other employees near a country railway station, was doing on the railway line nor as to where he was going at the time of his death. The applicant applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court. The application was based upon the ground that the accident arose out of the deceased's employment because the position of the camp and the use of necessary services and amenities made the risk of injury by accident in con- nexion with the railway a risk to which the deceased was exposed in virtue of his employment.
Held, that although to live in the camp might be regarded as an incident of the deceased's employment the lack of evidence as to what the deceased was doing on the railway line or as to where he was going at the time of his death left in doubt whether there was truly a causal connexion between the employment and the accident; he was killed by a train in circuinstances which could be known, if at all, only from inference and as an appeal by the applicant must fail it would be wrong to grant her special leave to appeal.
APPLICATION for special leave to appeal from a magistrate's court.
A claim for compensation under the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1954 made on behalf of herself and their two infant children by Beryl Mary Goward, widow, of Manly West, Brisbane, Queensland, in respect of the death, on 4th August 1955, at Dulbydilla, Queensland, of her husband, Selwyn Arthur Goward,…
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.
Continue reading Goward v The Commonwealth
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Goward v The Commonwealth [1957] HCA 60
Case
[1957] HCA 60
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Mrs. Goward, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of a stipendiary magistrate in Brisbane. The magistrate had refused compensation under the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1954 for the death of her husband, a federal employee, who was killed by a train on a railway line. Mrs. Goward contended that her husband's death arose out of his employment due to the location of the employee camp and the necessity of using services located across the railway line.
The legal issues before the High Court were whether the magistrate erred in law or fact by refusing compensation, and whether special leave to appeal should be granted. Specifically, the court considered whether the deceased's presence on the railway line, leading to his death, could be considered an incident of his employment, thereby establishing a causal connection between his employment and the accident. This involved interpreting the phrase "arising out of the employment" within the context of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act and the circumstances of the deceased's living arrangements.
The High Court refused special leave to appeal. Their Honours reasoned that while living in the camp could be considered an incident of the deceased's employment, there was a critical lack of evidence regarding what the deceased was doing on the railway line or where he was going at the time of his death. This absence of evidence meant that any causal connection between his employment and the accident remained speculative. The court concluded that without evidence to establish this connection, an appeal would inevitably fail, making it inappropriate to grant special leave.