Pearson v Fremantle Harbour Trust - [1929] HCA 19

THE FREMANTLE HARBOUR TRUST

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Workers' Compensation-Accident-Worker injured on his way to get hot water for

tea for himself and fellow-workers-Injury arising " 'in the course of the employ- ment' - Workers' Compensation Act 1912-1924 (W.A.) (No. 69 of 1912-No. PERTH,

40 of 1924), sec. 6*-Fremantle Harbour Trust Act 1902-1913 (W.A.) (No. Sept. 6, 10.

17 of 1912-No. 4 of 1913), secs. 22, 26.

The words " arising

in the course of the employment in sec. 6 of the Workers' Compensation Act 1912-1924 (W.A.) describe a condition which is satisfied if the accident happens while the worker is doing something in the exercise of his functions although it is no more than an adjunct to or an incident of his service.

Following a practice or custom known to his employer, a worker left the job upon which he was working to go from one part of his employer's premises to another during his employer's time, in order to procure hot water for tea for the midday meal of himself and his fellow-workers: he was doing this for the purpose of more conveniently supplying them with the hot water which the employer habitually provided, generally as a matter of statutory obligation, sometimes without that compulsion but in like case. Whilst on the way to the employer's boiler containing the hot water, he was injured by a motor-car on a road on the employer's premises and he claimed compensation from his employer under the Workers' Compensation Act 1912-1924 (W.A.) in respect of the injuries sustained by him. * The Workers' Compensation Act

the worker is acting under his employer's 1912-1924 (W.A.), sec. 6 (1), provides

instructions, is caused to a worker, his that 'If in any employment personal injury by accident arising out of or in

pay compensation " &. the course of the employment, or whilst

42 CLR 321

Held, that the accident arose in the course of his employment, and that he was entitled to compensation under the Act.

St. Helens Colliery Co. v. Hewitson, (1924) A.C. 59, explained. Howells v. Great Western Railway, (1928) 138 L.T. 544, followed. Decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Full Court) reversed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The appellant, Robert Pearson, was a lumper in the employment of the respondent, the Fremantle Harbour Trust. By an award of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration under which the appellant worked, it was provided that " when employees are on duty on a vessel before or after a meal hour the employer shall, when practicable, cause hot water to be provided for them " and it was the practice of the respondent to supply its employees with hot water to make tea for their midday meal. To obtain the water it was necessary at fifteen or twenty minutes before the meal hour for one of the gang with which he was working to leave his job and go and fetch the…

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 Pearson v Fremantle Harbour Trust 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: [1929] HCA 19
Decision Date: 10 September 1929

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia concerning a claim for workers' compensation. The appellant, Robert Pearson, a lumper employed by the Fremantle Harbour Trust, was injured by a motor-car while crossing a road on the employer's premises. Pearson had left his work to fetch hot water for tea for himself and his fellow workers, a practice known to and facilitated by the employer, which was partly driven by an award obligation to provide hot water when employees were on duty at a vessel. The magistrate in the Local Court found the injury arose out of and in the course of Pearson's employment, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Pearson's injury, sustained while obtaining hot water for tea, arose "in the course of his employment" as defined by the Workers' Compensation Act 1912-1924 (W.A.). This required the court to determine if the act of fetching hot water, which was a customary practice and facilitated the employer's obligation under an award, constituted an integral part of the employment, even if not the employee's primary task. The court also considered whether the route taken by Pearson and the potential for an "added risk" were relevant to this determination.

The High Court reasoned that the phrase "arising in the course of the employment" is satisfied if an accident occurs while a worker is engaged in an activity that is an adjunct or incident of their service, even if it is not their primary duty. Applying this principle, the court found that Pearson was acting within the course of his employment because he was on his employer's premises, during working hours, performing an act that facilitated the provision of a service the employer habitually provided and was sometimes obligated to provide. The practice of fetching hot water was a conventional method for fulfilling this obligation, known and concurred in by the employer's officers, and thus authorised as part of the service. The court distinguished this from situations where an employee is merely on the employer's premises during their employment period but not engaged in any service-related activity.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Supreme Court's decision and restoring the Local Court's order that Pearson was entitled to compensation. The court held that the magistrate's finding that the accident arose in the course of employment was amply justified, and that the Workers' Compensation Act did not require the accident to also arise *out of* the employment, as these conditions were alternative.

Orders