Legal Research
Cases
J & H Timbers Pty Ltd v Nelson

J & H Timbers Pty Ltd v Nelson

Link copied

Case Copied 25 February 1972 52 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., Menzies, Windeyer, Owen and Gibbs JJ.

J. &H. TIMBERS PTY. LTD. v. NELSON

(1972) 126 CLR 625

25 February 1972

Workers' Compensation (N.S.W.)

Workers' Compensation (N.S.W.)—Injury to worker—Partial incapacity—Weekly payment—Entitlement—Computation of amount—Onus of proof—Workers' Compensation Act, 1926 (N.S.W.), as amended, ss. 6 (5) (a) 9, 11, (1) (a).

Decisions

February 25
The following written judgments were delivered : -
Barwick C.J. The respondent was engaged by the appellant, which conducted a timber mill, to haul logs from the forest to the mill. He was not in the employment of the appellant under a contract of employment but by virtue by s. 6 (5) (a) of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1926 (N.S.W.), as amended, (the Act) and the facts found by the Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) he was deemed for the purposes of the Act to be a worker employed by the appellant. The Commission found that the respondent received an injury in the course of his deemed employment by the appellant. It also found that he suffered incapacity as the result of that injury. For a time the incapacity was total but after a time it became partial and continuing. The Commission made an award of compensation covering both the period of total incapacity and the period of partial incapacity. By an appeal brought to the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal Division) the appellant challenged the Commission's award insofar as it related to partial incapacity. The amount awarded for total incapacity had been paid by the appellant and the appellant sought to set aside the continuing award on account of partial incapacity and an order dismissing the respondent's application for compensation in respect of that partial incapacity. The Supreme Court by an unanimous judgment dismissed the appeal (1970) 92 WN (NSW) 629 . (at p628)

2. The appellant now appeals to this Court on the grounds, first that the Supreme Court was in error in holding that the onus was upon the appellant in the proceedings before the Commission to establish the extent of the dimunition of the respondent's earning capacity due to the injury he had received, and second that the Supreme Court was in error in holding that in the circumstance of the case the Commission was entitled to use its own experience and knowledge to find a difference between what the respondent earned prior to the injury and what he was earning or could earn after he became partially incapacitated due to the injury. (at p629)

3. The difficulties which arise in this case stem partly from the fact that the appellant was not an employee in receipt of wages and partly from the fact that the appellant worked in his business which was not confined either before or after his injury to hauling logs to the appellant's mill. Sawn timber was purchased and sold on his own account though according to the findings of the Commission "the greater part of the work was in the…

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 J & H Timbers Pty Ltd v Nelson 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: [1972] HCA 12
Decision Date: 25 February 1972

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by J & H Timbers Pty Ltd against a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in favour of the respondent, Mr Nelson. The dispute concerned the respondent's claim for damages for personal injuries sustained while employed by the appellant.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the appellant had breached its duty of care to the respondent, and if so, whether that breach caused the respondent's injuries. Specifically, the court had to determine if the appellant had provided a safe system of work, adequate supervision, and appropriate instructions to prevent the respondent from suffering injury.

The High Court analysed the evidence presented regarding the circumstances of the respondent's employment and the accident. It applied established principles of negligence, focusing on the foreseeability of harm and the reasonableness of the employer's actions or omissions. The court considered the nature of the work, the experience of the employee, and the precautions that ought to have been taken by the employer to mitigate risks. The court found that the appellant had failed to establish a safe system of work, and that this failure was causative of the respondent's injuries.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was affirmed.

Orders