Hatzimanolis v Ani Corporation Limited - [1991] HCATrans 185

• 'I

• --~·~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No SS0 of 1991
B e t w e e n -
FRANK MICHAEL HATZIMANOLIS

Applicant

and
ANI CORPORATION LIMITED

Respondent

Application for special leave
to appeal

MASON CJ
DEANE J

McHUGH J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON MONDAY, 5 AUGUST 1991, AT 12 NOON

Hatzimanolis

5/8/91

MR W.H. NICHOLAS, QC: If the Court pleases, in this matter
I appear with my learned friend, MR M.J. GORRICK,

for the applicant. (instructed by T.D. Kelly & Co)

MR J.G. POULOS, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my

learned friend, MR C.R.R. HOEBEN, for the
respondent. (instructed by Connery & Partners)

MASON CJ: Yes, Mr Nicholas.

MR NICHOLAS:

Your Honours, the point in this matter is a

short one but one of the utmost significance to my client.

Your Honours, the circumstances which give rise to the application are set out on page 51 of the book, and if I can take Your Honours to that, with respect.

It will be seen that:
The applicant was in the employ of the
respondent when ..... he was involved in a motor
vehicle accident which rendered him a
quadriplegic.

At that time he was some 23 years of age.

The circumstances of the employment,
Your Honours, are set out on page 52.

MASON CJ: Yes, we are familiar with that, Mr Nicholas.

MR NICHOLAS: If Your Honour pleases.

MASON CJ:

Now you might immediately proceed to persuade

us, or endeavour to persuade us, that the question
is one that merits t_he grant of special leave to
appeal.

MR NICHOLAS:

Thank you, Your Honour.

Your Honours, may I

hand up to you copies of the Workers Compensation
Act, the point being, of course, the construction of the definition of injury within the provisions of section 4 of the Act.

Your Honours, that definition may be found on

page 5 of the Act and, no doubt, it is an
expression familiar to the Court, with respect:
"injury" -

(a) means personal injury arising out of or in the course of employment;
We are not concerned with that limb which is "out of" but "in the course of employment", Your
Honours.

Hatzimanolis

5/8/91

Your Honours, at the outset we would emphasize
that the drafting of the provision, of course,
omits the word which is commonly found in

It is "in the course of employment". judgments, "his employment" or any other pronoun.
Our submission to Your Honours, with respect,

is that at the end of the day, a situation such as
that in which the applicant here was involved in
arose out of the circumstances in which he found
himself, the direct product of the relationship
between his employer, that is to say, the
employment relationship.
Your Honours, the error one can shortly state

it, which we contend the Court of Appeal made, was
to so construe the provision 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hatzimanolis v Ani Corporation Limited 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: [1991] HCATrans 185
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Frank Michael Hatzimanolis (the applicant) sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of Appeal concerning his claim for workers' compensation. The applicant, aged 23, was employed by Ani Corporation Limited (the respondent) when he suffered a personal injury in a motor vehicle accident. The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of the definition of "injury" under section 4 of the relevant Workers' Compensation Act.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was the construction of the phrase "in the course of employment" as it appeared in the definition of "injury" within section 4 of the Workers' Compensation Act. Specifically, the applicant contended that the Court of Appeal had erred by narrowly construing this phrase, effectively limiting its application to circumstances directly related to the actual performance of work or the location where work was undertaken. The applicant argued for a broader interpretation that encompassed the overall employment relationship.

The applicant's submission was that the legislation did not provide a basis for such a restrictive interpretation. He argued that the purpose and objects of workers' compensation legislation necessitated a consideration of the broader employment relationship, drawing an analogy to the High Court's approach in *Walker v Wilson*, a case concerning journey provisions for a jockey. This approach, the applicant contended, required looking at the circumstances arising from the employment relationship itself, rather than solely focusing on the immediate performance of tasks.

Orders