Legal Research
Cases
Harrington v Harrington

Harrington v Harrington

Case [1981] HCA 42 7 August 1981

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gibbs C.J., Mason, Aickin, Wilson and Brennan JJ.

HARRINGTON v. HARRINGTON

(1981) 155 CLR 317

7 August 1981

Workers' Compensation (S.A.)

Workers' Compensation (S.A.)—Amount of compensation payments—Weekly payments during incapacity—Maximum limit of total liability—Power of court to increase total beyond maximum—Whether maximum standard to be observed in absence of special circumstances—Redemption of liability for weekly payments—Workmen's Compensation Act 1971 (S.A.), ss. 51, 72.

Decisions

August 7.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
GIBBS C.J. On this appeal, which is brought by special leave from a judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, it is necessary to determine the meaning and effect of ss. 51(4)(b) and 72 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1971 (S.A.), as amended ("the Act"), in the form in which those sections were placed by the Workmen's Compensation Act Amendment Act 1973 (S.A.) ("the Amendment Act of 1973"). (at p319)

2. On 28 February 1976 the appellant, who was a workman within the meaning of the Act, sustained personal injuries arising out of or in the course of his employment with the respondent. The appellant was then aged sixteen. His injuries were serious, and have rendered him totally and permanently incapable of work, but have not reduced his expectation of life. The respondent is making weekly payments of compensation, which at the date of the proceedings in the Industrial Court of South Australia to which reference is about to be made were at the rate of $135. The respondent made application to the Industrial Court for an order pursuant to s. 72 of the Act redeeming his liability to pay weekly or other compensation to the appellant, and the appellant applied to that Court for various relief including an order that the total liability of the respondent in respect of payments under s. 51 be fixed at $500,000 or such higher or other sum as to the Court might appear appropriate. The two applications came on for hearing together, and a case was stated under s. 46 of the Act for the consideration of the Full Industrial Court. That Court gave its decision answering the questions asked by the stated case, and an appeal from that decision was brought by the present respondent to the Full Court of the Supreme Court. The present appellant cross-appealed. The Full Court of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal by varying the answer to one question, but otherwise affirmed the answers given by the Industrial Court. An appeal has been brought to this Court from the decision of the Full Court and the respondent has cross-appealed. (at p320)

3. Before I set out the questions asked in the stated case and the answers given to them, it is convenient to refer to the provisions of the Act which have given rise to the questions. By s. 9 of the Act it is provided that if any employment personal injury arising out of or in the course of the employment is caused to…

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 Harrington v Harrington

Details

AGLC: Harrington v Harrington [1981] HCA 42
Case: [1981] HCA 42
Decision Date: 7 August 1981

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the case of *Harrington v Harrington*, brought before it on appeal. The dispute concerned the interpretation and application of certain provisions within a deed of settlement and a subsequent deed of variation, which had been entered into by the parties in relation to their respective interests in a company.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the respondent had validly exercised a right of pre-emption under the deed of settlement, and consequently, whether the appellant was bound to sell their shares in the company to the respondent on the terms stipulated. The Court also had to determine the proper construction of the deeds, particularly in light of the variation, and whether the respondent's actions constituted a breach of contract or a repudiation of the agreement.

The Court's reasoning focused on the principles of contractual interpretation, emphasizing the importance of giving effect to the plain meaning of the words used in the deeds, read in their context. The judges analysed the specific clauses relating to the pre-emption rights and the procedures for their exercise, considering the intention of the parties as evidenced by the documents themselves. The Court found that the respondent's conduct did not comply with the requirements of the deed for exercising the pre-emption right, and therefore, the appellant was not obliged to sell the shares.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the lower court. The Court declared that the respondent had not validly exercised the pre-emption right and that the appellant was not bound to sell their shares.

Orders