Webb v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) - [1938] HCA 24

THE COMMISSIONER FOR RAILWAYS (NEW

SOUTH WALES) RESPONDENT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Workers' Compensation-Injury arising out of and in the course of the employment-

Railway employee-Jumping on to moving locomotive-Abandonment of duty- Act 'done by the worker for the purposes of and in connection with his employer's trade or business -Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1929 (N.S.W.) (No. 15 of 1926-No. 36 of 1929), sec. 7 (2)*.

When returning to a railway station to report on a duty which he had been sent to perform, an employee of the Commissioner for Railways of New South Wales, in breach of a regulation, jumped on to the step of a slowly moving locomotive. His foot slipped, and he fell under the locomotive and sustained serious injury. On an application for compensation, the Workers' Compen- sation Commission found that, although the locomotive was proceeding in the same direction as that in which the applicant's work required him to go, his act, in attempting to ride on the locomotive, was done for purposes of his own and Sec. 7 of the Workers' Compensa-

course of his employment notwith- tion Act 1926-1929 (N.S.W.) provides

standing that the worker was, at the

59 CLR 594

was not done for the purposes of and in connection with his employer's trade or business within the meaning of sec. 7 (2) of the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1929 (N.S.W.). The commission, therefore, dismissed the application.

Held that the finding was one open to the commission in the circumstances of the case, and the High Court could not interfere with the commission's findings of fact. (N.S.W.).

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full Court): Webb V. Commissioner for Railways, (1937) 38 S.R. (N.S.W.) 76 55 W.N. (N.S.W.) 4,

CASE STATED.

In an application for compensation brought by Arthur Bruce Webb against the Commissioner for Railways (N.S.W.) a case stated by the Workers' Compensation Commission for the determination of certain questions by the Supreme Court of New South Wales was substantially as follows :-

1. This case is stated at the request of the applicant worker referring for the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales certain questions of law which arose in proceedings before the Workers' Compensation Commission of New South Wales.

2. The relevant particulars of claim and defence, together with the facts found by the commission, and the reasons for its decision, are contained in the judgment of the commission set out in par. 3 hereof, the basic question referred for the decision of the Supreme Court being whether the commission erred in law in holding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of the applicant's employment.

3. The judgment of the commission is as follows: This is a claim by the applicant against the respondent for £525 lump sum compensation under sec. 16 of the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1929 in respect of the loss of the applicant's left foot, which resulted from injury…

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 Webb v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) 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: [1938] HCA 24
Decision Date: 11 April 1938

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had considered a case stated by the Workers' Compensation Commission. The appellant, Arthur Bruce Webb, a railway employee, sought compensation for a serious injury sustained when he fell under a moving locomotive. The Commissioner for Railways (N.S.W.) denied liability, arguing the injury did not arise out of or in the course of Webb's employment.

The central legal issue before the courts was whether Webb's injury, sustained when he jumped onto the step of a moving locomotive in breach of a regulation, could be deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment under section 7(2) of the *Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1929* (N.S.W.). This section provided that an injury would be deemed to arise out of and in the course of employment even if the worker contravened a regulation, provided the act was done "for the purposes of and in connection with his employer's trade or business."

The Workers' Compensation Commission found that Webb's act of boarding the locomotive was not done for the purposes of or in connection with his employer's business, but rather for his own purposes, possibly to converse with the engine crew. The Commission concluded that Webb had voluntarily exposed himself to an unnecessary peril outside the scope of his employment. The High Court, affirming the Supreme Court's decision, held that the Commission's finding was a finding of fact open to it on the evidence. The Court reasoned that section 7(2) required the act to be done for the employer's purposes, and the Commission had determined, as a matter of fact, that Webb's motive was personal and unconnected with his employer's business. Therefore, the High Court could not interfere with this finding of fact, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders