Minister for Education v Klein

Case [2005] WASCA 185

MINISTER FOR EDUCATION -v- KLEIN [2005] WASCA 185



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2005] WASCA 185
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:FUL:114/200414 JUNE 2005
Coram:STEYTLER P
WHEELER JA
PULLIN JA		27/09/05
8Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal allowed
A
PDF Version
Parties:MINISTER FOR EDUCATION
ALAN DAVID JOHN KLEIN

Catchwords:
Workers' compensation
Whether public authority a "deemed" employer under s 175 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA)
Meaning and effect of s 6 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA)

Legislation:
Education Act 1928 (WA), s 5, s 6, s 9
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 6, s 175

Case References:
Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association (1959) 107 CLR 208
Jones v Wesfarmers Ltd [2003] WASCA 225
Frauenfelder v Reid (1963) 109 CLR 42
Hewitt v Benale Pty Ltd (2002) 27 WAR 91
Moir v Schrader (1936) 56 CLR 310
Price v Resolute Resources Ltd (2002) 29 SR (WA) 371

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : MINISTER FOR EDUCATION -v- KLEIN [2005] WASCA 185 CORAM : STEYTLER P
    WHEELER JA
    PULLIN JA
HEARD : 14 JUNE 2005 DELIVERED : 27 SEPTEMBER 2005 FILE NO/S : FUL 114 of 2004 BETWEEN : MINISTER FOR EDUCATION
    Appellant

    AND

    ALAN DAVID JOHN KLEIN
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : NISBET DCJ

Citation : KLEIN -v- MINISTER FOR EDUCATION [2004] WADC 153

File No : CIV 2647 of 2000




(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Whether public authority a "deemed" employer under s 175 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA) - Meaning and effect of s 6 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA)




Legislation:

Education Act 1928 (WA), s 5, s 6, s 9


Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 6, s 175


Result:

Appeal allowed




Category: A


Representation:


Counsel:


    Appellant : Mr D R Clyne
    Respondent : Mr C P Shanahan SC


Solicitors:

    Appellant : Blake Dawson Waldron
    Respondent : Butcher Paull & Calder


Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association (1959) 107 CLR 208
Jones v Wesfarmers Ltd [2003] WASCA 225

Case(s) also cited:



Frauenfelder v Reid (1963) 109 CLR 42
Hewitt v Benale Pty Ltd (2002) 27 WAR 91
Moir v Schrader (1936) 56 CLR 310
Price v Resolute Resources Ltd (2002) 29 SR (WA) 371


(Page 3)

1 STEYTLER P: I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Wheeler JA. I agree with it and with her conclusion that the appeal should be allowed.

2 WHEELER JA: The facts in this matter may be shortly stated. At the relevant date, the respondent was a security guard on mobile patrol employed by Falcon Investigations and Security Pty Ltd ("Falcon"). Falcon had contracted with the appellant Minister for the supply of security services for the purpose of protecting the premises and assets…

Continue reading Minister for Education v Klein

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Minister for Education v Klein [2005] WASCA 185
Case
[2005] WASCA 185
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Minister for Education v Klein before the Supreme Court of Western Australia involved a dispute regarding the liability of the public authority, the Minister for Education, under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA). The dispute arose when Klein, an employee of a contractor engaged by the Minister, claimed that he was entitled to compensation for injuries sustained during his employment, arguing that the Minister was his "deemed" employer under the Act. The court was required to determine whether the Minister for Education could be considered a "deemed" employer under section 175 of the Act and, if so, what the implications were under section 6.

The court examined the meaning and effect of section 6 of the Act, which provided that a person who is an employer under that section is deemed to be the employer for the purposes of the Act. The court considered whether the Minister, by virtue of his position, could be considered an employer under section 6. It was necessary to interpret the language of the statute and understand the context in which the term "employer" was used. The court found that the Minister, as the contracting authority, had a sufficient degree of control and responsibility over the work environment and the workers, which justified treating the Minister as a "deemed" employer under the Act.

After careful consideration, the court determined that the Minister for Education could indeed be considered a "deemed" employer under section 175 of the Act, as the statutory language and the surrounding context supported this interpretation. The court found that the Minister's control over the work environment and the workers was significant enough to warrant such a designation. Consequently, the court held that the Minister was liable for workers' compensation claims arising from injuries sustained by workers under his control, including Klein. The appeal was allowed, affirming the liability of the Minister as a "deemed" employer.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.