Vdovic v Peter a Cox and Associates Pty Ltd

CITATION:	Vdovic v Peter A Cox & Associates Pty Ltd [1999] NSWCA 247
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40737/98
HEARING DATE(S):	9 July 1999
JUDGMENT DATE:	9 July 1999
PARTIES :	John Vdovic v Peter A Cox & Associates Pty Ltd
JUDGMENT OF:	Sheller JA at 18; Giles JA at 19; Davies AJA at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	Compensation Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	CC 12866/97
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Campbell CCJ

COUNSEL:	Claimant - B. O'Sullivan Opponent - W. J. Roche
SOLICITORS:	Claimant - Bolzan & Dimitri Opponent - Glover & Glover
CATCHWORDS:	Workers compensation; whether injury suffered in course of employment
ACTS CITED:	Compensation Court Act 1984 Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
CASES CITED:	Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd (1992) 173 CLR 473 Henderson v Commissioner of Railways (WA) (1937) 55 CLR 281 Humphrey Earl Limited v Speechley (1951) 84 CLR 126 Whittingham v Commissioner of Railways (WA) (1933) 46 CLR 22
DECISION:	Application dismissed with costs

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40737/98

SHELLER JA
GILES JA
DAVIES AJA

Friday, 9 July 1999

VDOVIC v PETER A COX & ASSOCIATES
PTY LIMITED
JUDGMENT

1 DAVIES AJA: This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of Campbell Chief Judge of the Compensation Court dismissing a claim for compensation brought under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW). Under s 32 of the Compensation Court Act 1984 (NSW), an appeal may be brought on a point of law or on a question as to the admission or rejection of evidence. 2 The claimant, Mr John Vdovic, had, on 26 October 1995, suffered a broken left leg while playing speed soccer for a team known as the “Misfits”. The issue is whether that injury was suffered in the course of the claimant’s employment. The opponent, Peter A Cox & Associates Pty Limited, carried on the business of insurance investigation. The claimant was an employee or a deemed employee of the opponent and held a sub-agent’s licence to carry out investigations on behalf of the opponent. He was remunerated on a piece work basis. 3    The claimant’s case as put to the learned trial judge was that Mr Maurice Geerlof, the manager of the opponent, was in a position to influence the amount of work that he received and that, on this particular evening, he played in the team the “Misfits”, although he was reluctant to do so, because he feared that he might lose work if he did not. He said, inter alia, that Mr Geerlof who organised the “Misfits”, called him into his office and said, “Turn up tonight, we need players”. He said that he was informed that Mr Geerlof and two other investigators would be playing in the team as would two young men, brothers, who were the sons of a GIO claims manager. The claimant gave evidence that GIO was a major source of work for the opponent company, and that…