King v Hayward

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from a claim for workers' compensation by Harry Hayward against William Robert Fawcett King. Hayward sought a lump sum payment under section 16 of the *Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1942* (NSW) for the total loss of sight in his left eye, which he sustained during his employment with King. King denied liability, arguing that Hayward had previously suffered a 95% loss of sight in the same eye while employed by a different employer, for which he had already received compensation.

The legal issues before the court were whether Hayward was entitled to the full lump sum compensation for the loss of sight of an eye, despite having previously received compensation for a partial loss of sight in that same eye, and whether the amount previously received should be deducted from the current claim. The court was required to interpret section 16 of the *Workers' Compensation Act*, particularly the provisions relating to the "loss of sight of one eye" and any applicable deductions or limitations.

The High Court, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court, held that Hayward was entitled to the full lump sum compensation of £375. The Court reasoned that section 16 of the Act provides for compensation based on the injury sustained in the course of employment with a particular employer. The fact that the worker had previously suffered a partial loss of sight in the same eye and received compensation for it was irrelevant to the current claim. The Court applied the principle that the table in section 16 does not distinguish between eyes of full normal vision and eyes of impaired efficiency, and that a subsequent injury causing total loss of sight in that eye, regardless of its prior condition, entitled the worker to the full amount specified for the loss of sight of one eye. The Court found no provision in the Act that justified deducting compensation received for a prior injury from a lump sum payable for a subsequent, distinct injury.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.