McGale, Peter v Glad, Raiga Irene

In this case, Peter McGale sought workers' compensation from Raiga Irene Glad, arguing that he was injured while travelling from his employment. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and subsequently appealed. The central dispute involved the interpretation of section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance 1951 (A.C.T.), particularly whether McGale's injury occurred while he was "travelling from employment" and if the interruption to his journey was substantial and made for a reason. Additionally, the court considered if a substantial involuntary interruption could negate the right to compensation for an injury sustained during such an interruption, and if the injury resulted in partial or total incapacity.

The legal issues before the court were to determine the meaning of "travelling from employment" and whether the circumstances of McGale's injury qualified. The court also had to decide if the interruption to McGale's journey was substantial, made for a reason, and whether such an interruption could negate his right to compensation. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the nature of McGale's incapacity resulting from the injury.

The court found that McGale's injury did not occur while he was "travelling from employment" as defined by the ordinance. The court concluded that the circumstances of McGale's injury did not satisfy the criteria for compensation under section 8. The court held that the interruption to McGale's journey was not substantial and was not made for a reason. Moreover, the court found that an involuntary substantial interruption could negate the right to compensation. Finally, the court determined that McGale's incapacity was not total. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and McGale was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incident to the appeal.