Norwest Beef Industries Ltd v Janides, John - [1983] FCA 130

Re: NORWEST BEEF INDUSTRIES LIMITED
And: JOHN JANIDES (1983) 77 FLR 119
No. NTG11 of 1983
Workmen's Compensation - Workers' Compensation

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Toohey(1), Lockhart(2) and Jenkinson(3) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Workmen's Compensation - whether respondent injured while travelling to his employment - whether immediate purpose in making journey was to enter upon duties which employment imposed - meaning of "immediate purpose" - interval of time between respondent reaching place of employment and commencing the actual performance of his duties

Workmen's Compensation Act (N.T.) s.8(2)

Worker's Compensation - Whether respondent injured while travelling to his employment - Whether immediate purpose in making journey was to enter upon duties which employment imposed - Question of fact - "Immediate purpose" - Interval of time between respondent reaching place of employment and commencing the actual performance of his duties - Workmen's Compensation Act (NT), ss 8(1)(a), 8(2).

HEADNOTE

The respondent's permanent home was near Darwin. Im March 1981 he signed a contract to work for the appellant at Katherine commencing on Monday 6 April 1981. The appellant agreed to pay the respondent's air fares or other travelling expenses plus travelling time allowance. The respondent left Darwin on Friday 3 April 1981 to travel to Katherine, some 330 kilometres away, and spend the weekend preparing his accommodation and equipment necessary for his work. The respondent was injured on 3 April 1981 when the motor vehicle in which he was a passenger was involved in an accident about fifteen miles north of Katherine. He was thereby injured and incapacitated for work. The Workmen's Compensation Tribunal determined that the respondent was entitled to compensation pursuant to the Workmen's Compensation Act on the ground that he sustained injury by accident while travelling to his employment pursuant to s 8(2) of that Act. The employer's appeal to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory was dismissed.

Held: (1) The issue to be determined was essentially one of fact. What was the purpose of the employee's travel?

(2) The respondent's purpose in travelling had been to enter upon the duties required by his employment.

Australian Coastal Shipping Commission v Averell (1969) 122 CLR 348, applied.

Commonwealth v Wright (1956) 96 CLR 536 at 552 (per Fullagar J), explained.

(3) Appeal dismissed.

HEARING

Sydney, 1983, May 31; July 8. #DATE 8:7:1983

APPEAL

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory dismissing an appeal against a determination of the Workmen's Compensation Tribunal.

P J Deakin, for the appellant.

J Waters, for the respondent.

Cur adv vult

Solicitors for the appellant: Mildren Silvester & Partners.

Solicitors for the respondent: Waters, James & O'Neil.

TJG

ORDER

The appeal be dismissed.

The appellant pay the respondent's costs of this appeal.

Orders accordingly

JUDGE1

On Friday 3 April 1981 the respondent left Darwin as a passenger in a motor vehicle travelling to Katherine. At a point about 15 miles north of Katherine there was an accident as a result of which…

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 Norwest Beef Industries Ltd v Janides, John 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: [1983] FCA 130
Decision Date: 08 JULY 1983

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Norwest Beef Industries Ltd v Janides, John, the High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the respondent, John Janides, was entitled to workers' compensation for injuries sustained while travelling to his place of employment. Janides, an employee of Norwest Beef Industries Ltd, was injured in a car accident while en route to work. Norwest Beef Industries Ltd, the employer, contested the claim for compensation, arguing that Janides' injuries were not sustained in the course of his employment as he had not yet begun performing his duties when the accident occurred. The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the term "immediate purpose" in the context of workers' compensation, specifically whether the immediate purpose of Janides' journey to work was to enter upon the duties imposed by his employment, considering the interval between reaching his workplace and starting his work.

The court considered the legislative intent behind workers' compensation laws, which are designed to provide a safety net for employees injured in the course of their employment. It examined the statutory provisions governing the entitlement to compensation and the case law interpreting these provisions. The court held that the immediate purpose of Janides' journey was to enter upon the duties imposed by his employment. The court reasoned that the concept of "immediate purpose" should not be narrowly construed to exclude periods of reasonable transition between arriving at the workplace and commencing the actual performance of work duties. The interval between reaching the workplace and starting work was deemed to be part of the employment's routine and thus protected under the workers' compensation legislation.

Consequently, the court dismissed Norwest Beef Industries Ltd's appeal and found in favour of Janides. The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that Norwest Beef Industries Ltd pay Janides' costs of the appeal. This decision underscores the broad interpretation of the term "immediate purpose" in workers' compensation law, ensuring that employees are adequately protected during their commute to work.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.

The appellant pay the respondent's costs of this appeal.

Orders accordingly

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.