Selby Shoes (Australia) Pty Ltd v Erickson

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.