McGale, Peter v Glad, Raiga Irene - [1981] FCA 90

Re: PETER McGALE
And: RAIGA IRENE GLAD (1981) 59 FLR 1
No. F.C. G.40 of 1980
Workers' Compensation - Statutes

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Evatt(1), Sheppard(2) and Kelly(3) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Workers' Compensation - Workmen's Compensation Ordinance 1951 (A.C.T.) (s.8) - Appeal from Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory - Worker injured after leaving work - Circumstances obscure - Whether "travelling from employment" - Meaning of "travelling" - Whether "interruption substantial" - Whether purpose of interruption relevant - Meaning of "made for a reason" - Whether substantial involuntary interruption can negative right to compensation for injury caused during such interruption - Incapacity - Whether partial or total.

Workers' Compensation - Substantial interruption of journey home - Whether interruption must be voluntary - Whether total incapacity - Workmen's Compensation Ordinance 1951 (A.C.T.), s. 8.

Statutes - Interpretation - Substantial interruption of journey home - Whether interruption must be voluntary - "Made for a reason unconnected with the workman's employment" - Whether that phrase affects only "any substantial deviation" - Workmen's Compensation Ordinance 1951 (A.C.T.), s. 8.

HEADNOTE

The appellant employer appealed from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Connor A.C.J.) to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia on the grounds that the appellant was under no liability to the respondent to pay her compensation and that the court was in error in holding that the respondent was totally incapacitated for her work.

Held: Per curiam dismissing the appeal - (1) The phrase "made for a reason unconnected with the workman's employment" in s. 8(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance qualifies both "interruption" and "deviation".

(2) The "interruption" for the purpose of s. 8(2) of the Ordinance must have been the result of a conscious decision voluntarily made by the workman to interrupt his journey.

Scobie v. K.D. Welding Co. Pty. Ltd. (1959), 103 CLR 314, applied.

Arthur J. Stephens (N.S.W.) Pty. Ltd. v. Napoli (1969), 43 ALJR 452 (n.); considered.

Mathews v. Welded Products Ltd. (1955), 29 WCR (NSW) 145, referred to.

(3) In the present case the respondent's journey was not the subject of any interruption within the meaning of s. 8(2) of the Ordinance.

(4) The respondent was "travelling" from her place of employment to her home at the relevant time within the meaning of s. 8(2) of the Ordinance.

(5) The respondent was totally incapacitated as a result of the relevant events.

Ball v. William Hunt & Sons Ltd., (1912) AC 496, applied.

Ruiz v. Canberra Rex Hotel Pty. Ltd. (1974), 5 ACTR 1; Birch Brothers Ltd. v. Brown, (1931) AC 605, referred to.

H.D. Sperling Q.C. and G.A. Crawford, for the appellant.

J.S. Coombs Q.C. and G.J. Lunney, for the respondent.

HEARING

Sydney, 1981, April 8; July 3. #DATE 3:7:1981

Cur.adv.vult.

Solicitors for the appellant: Davies, Bailey & Cater.

Solicitors for the respondent: Crossin & Co.

E.F. FROHLICH

ORDER

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2.…

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 McGale, Peter v Glad, Raiga Irene 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: [1981] FCA 90
Decision Date: 03 JULY 1981

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of McGale, Peter v Glad, Raiga Irene, the worker, Peter McGale, appealed against a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which found that he was not entitled to compensation for injuries sustained while travelling home from work. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance 1951 (A.C.T.), specifically section 8, and whether McGale's injuries occurred while he was "travelling from employment." The court was tasked with determining the meaning of "travelling," whether the interruption to his journey was substantial, if the purpose of the interruption was relevant, and if a substantial involuntary interruption could negate the right to compensation for injury during such interruption.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of statutory provisions and the determination of whether McGale's injuries occurred while he was "travelling from employment." The court had to consider whether the term "travelling" included travel from work to home, and whether the interruption to that travel was substantial. Furthermore, the court examined if the purpose of the interruption was relevant and if a substantial involuntary interruption could negate the right to compensation for injury caused during such interruption. The court also had to determine if McGale's incapacity was partial or total.

The court held that the appeal should be dismissed and the decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory upheld. The court found that McGale's injuries did not occur while he was "travelling from employment," as the interruption to his journey was not substantial. The purpose of the interruption was deemed relevant, and the court concluded that a substantial involuntary interruption could negate the right to compensation for injury caused during such interruption. The court also found that McGale's incapacity was total. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and McGale was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs of and incident to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The Appellant pay the Respondent's costs of and incident to the appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.