Reid Stockfeeds Pty Ltd v Lindhe - [2008] VSC 304

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 10119 of 2007

REID STOCKFEEDS PTY LTD	Appellant
v
MARK LINDHE	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Kyrou J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 August 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 August 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Reid Stockfeeds Pty Ltd v Lindhe
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 304

---

Appeal under Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (Vic), s 109.

Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic), s 82(1) – meaning of “in the course of” employment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr R Gorton QC and Mr M Fleming	Wisewoulds Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr M O’Loghlen QC and Mr B Hutchinson	Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction and summary

This is an appeal under s 109 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (Vic) (“MC Act”) against an order made on 23 November 2007 by the Magistrates’ Court at Melbourne requiring the appellant, Reid Stockfeeds Pty Ltd (“Reid”), to make weekly payments of compensation to the respondent, Mark Lindhe, and to pay Mr Lindhe’s reasonable medical and like expenses and costs of the Magistrates’ Court proceeding.

The Magistrate found that Mr Lindhe’s injury, which occurred while he was lifting the arm of a hopper at his workplace as part of a “lifting competition”, took place “in the course of” his employment within the meaning of s 82(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) (“AC Act”) notwithstanding that this activity was not part of what he had been employed by Reid to do.

For the reasons set out in this judgment, I have concluded that the Magistrate erred in law in concluding that it was sufficient to warrant a finding that Mr Lindhe’s injury was in the course of his employment if that injury occurred during the prescribed work hours and at the specified place of employment. The appeal will be allowed and the proceeding remitted to the Magistrates’ Court.

Facts, relevant statutory provisions and procedural history

The facts, as found by the Magistrate, were not in dispute before me. Commencing in May 2002, Mr Lindhe was employed by Reid, initially as a mill hand and, from December 2002, as a mill supervisor at Reid’s Trafalgar plant in Gippsland. His duties required him to, among other things, blend stock feed or mix feed, add additives to the feed, and carry out feed bagging operations. Essentially, he processed and bagged grain for delivery to farmers to accord with their specific requirements. Aspects of the work were heavy and physical. Mr Lindhe also performed cleaning duties and mechanical work from time to time.

On 20 February 2003, two shifts were worked by mill hands at Reid’s premises. The first shift commenced at 4am and comprised Todd Glasper (supervisor) and Andrew Kennedy (mill hand). The second shift commenced at 8am and comprised Mr Lindhe (supervisor) and Mick Stepersma (mill hand). On that day, there was a large item of plant and machinery at Reid’s premises which was described…

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 Reid Stockfeeds Pty Ltd v Lindhe 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: [2008] VSC 304
Decision Date: 15 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Reid Stockfeeds Pty Ltd v Lindhe involved the plaintiff, Reid Stockfeeds, appealing a decision from the Magistrates' Court of Victoria concerning compensation under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic). The plaintiff sought to determine if an employee, Lindhe, was entitled to compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The central issue was whether the accident occurred "in the course of" employment as defined by section 82(1) of the Act.

The court was tasked with interpreting the phrase "in the course of" employment to ascertain if Lindhe's accident was sufficiently connected to his employment duties. This involved examining the circumstances surrounding the accident, including the time, location, and purpose of Lindhe's travel at the time of the incident. The court considered whether the accident occurred while Lindhe was performing his work-related tasks or if it happened during a personal detour or break.

The court concluded that the accident did not occur "in the course of" employment because Lindhe was on a personal detour unrelated to his work duties when the accident happened. The court held that the accident was not part of the employment activities and did not arise out of them. As such, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Magistrates' Court decision that Lindhe was not entitled to compensation under the Act.

The final orders of the court confirmed that the appeal was dismissed and that Lindhe was not entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident.

Orders