Legal Research
Cases
Tickle Industries Pty Ltd v Hann

Tickle Industries Pty Ltd v Hann

Link copied

Case Copied 13 February 1974 35 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

. Barwick C.J., McTiernan and Menzies JJ.

TICKLE INDUSTRIES PTY. LTD. v. HANN.

(1974) 130 CLR 321

13 February 1974

Workmen's Compensation (N.T.)

Workmen's Compensation (N.T.)—Death of employee—Payment of compensation to dependants—Employer's right of indemnity from person liable to pay damages in respect of injury—Indemnity limited to "so much of the compensation paid to employee as does not exceed the damages for &hich that person is liable"- Lord Campbell's Act action barred—Whether right of employer to indemnity affected—Workmen's Compensation Ordinance 1949-1968 (N.T.), s. 22 (1).* * Section 22 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance 1949-1968 (N.T.) provides so far as material that: "If any injury in respect of which compensation is payable under this Ordinance is caused under circumstances which appear to create a legal liability in some person other than the employer to pay damages in respect of the injury . . . (d) where the workman has received compensation under this Ordinance, but no damages or les than the full amount of the damages to which he is entitled, the person liable to pay the damages shall indemnify the employer against so much of the compensation paid to the workman as does not exceed the damages for which that person is liable."

Decisions

1974, February 13.
The following written judgments were delivered :-
BARWICK C.J. By special leave of the Court, the appellant appeals against the judgment for the defendants entered in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in an action in which the appellant was plaintiff. (at p322)

2. An employee of the appellant, Harold Arnold Harriman, died as a result of a motor car collision on a roadway in the Territory whilst he was in the course of his employment. The appellant, upon the employee's death, became liable to pay compensation to the widow and a child of the employee, pursuant to s. 7 of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance 1949-1968 (Northern Territory) (the Compensation Ordinance) and the 2nd Sch. thereto. The appellant duly paid the amount of that compensation to the employee's dependants. It does not appear whether or not the death of the employee was instantaneous, if indeed in the case of a road accident that is a medical possibility, or deferred for some time after the receipt of fatal injuries. Thus, if those injuries were caused by a tortfeasor, it may be that for a period the employee had a cause of action against that person : a cause of action, however, which did not survive him. (at p323)

3. The respondent Richardson in this appeal was the driver and the respondent Hann the owner of a car involved in the collision out of which, by reason of the employee's injuries and death, the liability to compensation under the Compensation Ordinance arose. (at p323)

4. The appellant in this action sought indemnity under the Compensation Ordinance by the respondents in respect of the compensation paid to the widow and child of the deceased employee. (at p323)

5. Section…

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 Tickle Industries Pty Ltd v Hann 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: [1974] HCA 5
Decision Date: 13 February 1974

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tickle Industries Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia from a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the appellant's liability for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident in which the respondent, Mr. Hann, sustained injuries. The core of the appeal revolved around the proper application of the *Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946* (NSW) concerning the apportionment of liability in cases of contributory negligence.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Supreme Court had erred in its assessment of the degree of contributory negligence attributable to the respondent. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the trial judge had given sufficient weight to the respondent's actions in the circumstances of the accident and whether the apportionment of blame between the parties was just and equitable.

The High Court, in its reasoning, affirmed the principles governing the assessment of contributory negligence. It emphasised that the question of apportionment is one of fact and degree, requiring a careful consideration of the relative blameworthiness of each party's conduct. The court found that the trial judge had not given adequate consideration to the respondent's failure to take reasonable precautions for his own safety, particularly in light of the prevailing conditions at the time of the accident. Consequently, the High Court varied the apportionment of liability, finding the respondent to be more contributorily negligent than determined by the lower court.

Orders