Legal Research
Cases
Hills v Brambles Holdings Ltd

Hills v Brambles Holdings Ltd

Case [1987] TASSC 31 10 April 1987

Workers' Compensation Act 1927

Serious and Wilful Misconduct

Compensation

Workers' Compensation Law

Type to search within this case.

TASSC A20/1987

CITATION: Hills v Brambles Holdings Ltd [1987] TASSC 31; A20/1987

PARTIES:  HILLS
  v
  BRAMBLES HOLDINGS LTD

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  WC 89/1985
DELIVERED ON:  10 April 1987
DELIVERED AT:
HEARING DATE:
JUDGMENT OF:  Green CJ

CATCHWORDS:

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Plaintiff:
           Defendant:
Solicitors:
           Plaintiff:
           Defendant:

Judgment Number: TASSC A20/1987
Number of paragraphs: 11

Serial No A20/1987
File No WC 89/1985

HILLS v BRAMBLES HOLDINGS LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GREEN CJ

10 April 1987

This is a claim for workers' compensation. On 6 July 1984 the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a pallet repairer at 30 Chapel Street, Glenorchy. At some time between about 6 pm and 6.20 pm on that day the plaintiff was injured in a motor accident which occurred whilst he was travelling between his place of employment and his place of residence. I find that for the purposes of s5(1) of the Workers’ Compensation Act 1927 the plaintiff suffered personal injury by accident which by virtue of s5(3A)(d) of the Act was deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment.

The defendant contends that the plaintiff is disentitled to compensation by virtue of s5(2)(a)(i) of the Act which provides as follows:

"5 – (2) No compensation shall be payable under this Act in respect of –
(a) any injury which is proved to be –
(i)Attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of the worker, unless the injury results in the death or serious and permanent disablement of the worker; ..."

By its defence the defendant alleges that the serious and wilful misconduct consisted of the plaintiff driving a motor vehicle "contrary to the direction or instruction given to him by his employer and when his ability to do so had been adversely affected by the consumption of intoxicating liquor". It is conceded that the injury did not result in the death or permanent disablement of the plaintiff.

I find that between about 2.30 pm and 6 pm on Friday, 6 July 1984 the plaintiff attended a barbecue at the defendant's premises which had been organised and paid for by the defendant. It is admitted that at 7.20 pm on that day the plaintiff had a concentration of .21 grams of alcohol in 100 mls of his blood. I find that the plaintiff did not consume any alcohol between the time when the accident occurred and 7.20 pm and that it is probable that the concentration of alcohol in his blood, both at the time of the accident and at the time when he left the barbecue, was about the same as it was at 7.20 pm I find that the plaintiff drank at least nine or ten cans of ordinary strength ale during the afternoon. I find that as a result of the consumption of liquor, at the time when the accident occurred the plaintiff would have had muscular inco–ordination, delayed reflexes and responses to external stimuli, impairment of his appreciation of…

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 Hills v Brambles Holdings Ltd

Details

AGLC: Hills v Brambles Holdings Ltd [1987] TASSC 31
Case: [1987] TASSC 31
Decision Date: 10 April 1987

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania was asked to determine whether the plaintiff, Hills, was entitled to workers' compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident. Hills, a pallet repairer, was injured while travelling home from a barbecue organised and paid for by his employer, Brambles Holdings Ltd. The accident occurred after Hills consumed a significant amount of alcohol at the barbecue and drove home, leading to a collision. Brambles Holdings Ltd argued that Hills' injuries were due to his serious and wilful misconduct, specifically driving under the influence, and thus he was not entitled to compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act 1927. The court had to decide whether Hills' actions constituted serious and wilful misconduct that would exclude him from compensation, and if so, whether the employer's conduct in organising the barbecue influenced this determination.

The court examined the definition of serious and wilful misconduct under the Act, noting that it must involve deliberate conduct that poses an immediate risk of serious injury and must be accompanied by an appreciation of the risk. The court considered that self-induced intoxication, if it leads to deliberate unsafe conduct, can amount to serious and wilful misconduct. The court further analysed the circumstances of the case, including the employer's advice against driving after consuming alcohol, and Hills' deliberate decision to drive despite this advice. The court found that Hills' consumption of alcohol and decision to drive were deliberate actions that created a substantial risk of serious injury, thus constituting serious and wilful misconduct. The employer's role in providing alcohol at the barbecue was considered relevant but did not preclude a finding of misconduct. Consequently, the court concluded that Hills' injury was attributable to his misconduct, and his claim for compensation was dismissed.

In light of the above findings, the plaintiff's claim for workers' compensation was dismissed. The court held that the plaintiff's injuries were a result of his serious and wilful misconduct, specifically driving under the influence of alcohol, and thus he was not entitled to compensation under the Workers' Compensation Act 1927.

Orders