Selby Shoes (Australia) Pty Ltd v Erickson - [1953] HCA 63

SELBY SHOES (AUSTRALIA) PROPRIE-

TARY LIMITED ERICKSON

RESPONDENT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Workers' Compensation-Periodic journey-Interruption-Substantial-Not reason-

ably incidental to journey-Injury-Risk-Material increase-Award Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1951 (N.S.W.) (No. 15 of 1926 - No. 25 of 1951), S. 7 (1) (b).* Aug. 18;

If a break in a journey of the description covered by the provisions of S. 7 (1) (b) and (c) of the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1951 (N.S.W.) is deemed by the Workers' Compensation Commission not to have been reasonably incidental to such journey the worker is not entitled under those provisions to compensation notwithstanding that in the circumstances of the particular case the nature, extent, degree and content of the risk of injury were not materially changed or increased by reason only of such interruption " and that the interruption for that reason is not to be deemed a substantial interruption within sub-par. (i) of par. (b) of S. 7 (1).

A worker interrupted a daily or periodic journey to his place of abode from his place of employment by a visit of an hour's duration to a hotel. He then resumed his journey part of which he made by train. In alighting from the train he suffered injury. The Commission found that the interruption of the journey occasioned by the call at the hotel was a substantial interruption in fact but that it was not an interruption by reason whereof (within the meaning of the second of the two paragraphs of S. 7 (1) (b) ) the nature, extent, degree and content of the risk were materially increased. It was therefore not to be deemed a substantial interruption within sub-par. (i) of S. 7 (1) (b).

Held that, by consequence of its exclusion from sub-par. (i), the interruption fell within the words " any other break in any such journey of sub-par. (ii)

* The provisions of par. (b) of S. 7 (1) are set out in the judgment of the Court-p. 31 post.

89 CLR 27

of S. 7 (1) (b), and the worker therefore was not entitled under that provision to recover compensation.

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full Court): Selby Shoes (Aust.) Pty. Ltd. v. Erickson (1953) 53 S.R. (N.S.W.) 142 70 W.N. 86, reversed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

Inar application for determination filed by him under the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1951 (N.S.W.), the worker, William Charles Erickson, claimed that he had, on 10th December 1951, met with an injury on his daily journey between his place of employment and his place of abode, which resulted in an injury to his left leg which totally incapacitated him from his employment from that day onward. The employer, Selby Shoes (Australia) Pty. Ltd., in its amended answer, denied liability on the grounds-(a) that the applicant's injury was received after a break in his said journey which had not been reasonably incidental to the said journey, and (b) that the applicant did not…

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.

Continue reading Selby Shoes (Australia) Pty Ltd v Erickson

Details

AGLC: Selby Shoes (Australia) Pty Ltd v Erickson [1953] HCA 63
Case: [1953] HCA 63
Decision Date: 1 October 1953

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from a claim for workers' compensation by William Charles Erickson against his employer, Selby Shoes (Australia) Pty Ltd. Erickson sustained an injury to his leg when he jumped from a moving train on his journey home from work. The employer denied liability, arguing the injury occurred after a substantial interruption to the journey that was not reasonably incidental to it.

The legal issues before the High Court were primarily concerned with the interpretation of section 7(1)(b) of the *Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1951* (NSW), particularly how a break in a worker's journey home from employment should be classified and its impact on compensation entitlement. Specifically, the court had to determine whether an interruption, found to be substantial in fact but not materially increasing the risk of injury, could still be considered an "other break" under the Act, thereby disentitling the worker to compensation if deemed not reasonably incidental to the journey.

The High Court's reasoning focused on the precise wording of section 7(1)(b) and the effect of an amendment introduced in 1951. The court held that the provision stating an interruption "shall not be deemed to be substantial" if it did not materially change or increase the risk of injury meant that such an interruption ceased to be substantial for all purposes of the section. Consequently, an interruption that was substantial in fact but did not increase the risk of injury was removed from the scope of the first condition (i) of section 7(1)(b). The court concluded that the language of the Act did not support the interpretation that such an interruption would then automatically fall under the second condition (ii) as an "other break" if it was not reasonably incidental.

The High Court allowed the appeal, discharging the order of the Supreme Court. The court ordered that the questions in the case stated be answered in favour of the employer, Selby Shoes (Australia) Pty. Ltd., meaning the award for the worker was discharged. The employer was awarded costs in the High Court and the respondent worker was ordered to pay the costs in the Supreme Court.

Orders