Legal Research
Cases
Weston v Great Boulder Gold Mines Ltd

Weston v Great Boulder Gold Mines Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 15 October 1964 22 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., Kitto, Menzies, Windeyer and Owen JJ.

WESTON v. GREAT BOULDER GOLD MINES LTD.

(1964) 112 CLR 30

15 October 1964

Workers' Compensation

Workers' Compensation—Personal injury by accident in the course of employment—Unexpected assault by intruder upon worker—Unconnected with employment—Workers' Compensation Act, 1912-1961 (W.A.), s. 7*.

Decisions

October 15.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J. In this case I have had the advantage of reading the judgments about to be delivered by Menzies J. and Owen J. I am in agreement with them as to the fate of this appeal. I agree with the reasons they each advance for deciding that the appellant suffered an injury by accident in the course of his employment and do not desire to add anything myself to these reasons. However, I would find it unnecessary to decide in this case whether or not the appellant's injury arose out of his employment and, consequently, I say nothing at all on that question. I find no need myself to make any reservation as does Menzies J. as to what the result should be if the appellant had actually expected that at some time or other, or for that matter at his work, the man X would violently attack him. The precise nature and timing of the attack would, in my opinion, be none the less unexpected in the relevant sense. (at p34)

2. I agree that the questions should be answered: (1) No. (2)(a) Unnecessary to answer. (b) No and that the appeal should be allowed. (at p34)

KITTO J. I am of the same opinion and have nothing to add. (at p34)

MENZIES J. It has been established since Fenton v. Thorley &Co. Ltd.(1903) AC 443 that when a worker is injured in his employment by an unlooked-for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed by the worker himself, there is injury by accident for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act: see Clover, Clayton &Co. Ltd. v. Hughes(1910) AC 242; Trim Joint District School Board of Management v. Kelly (1914) AC 667 and McGuire v Union Steamship Co of New Zealand(1920) 27 CLR 570 It has recently been decided by this Court that when a worker is so injured while he is working, injury by accident arises in the course of his employment: see Kavanagh v. The Commonwealth(1960) 103 CLR 547 (at p34)

2. Here the appellant, a workman employed by the respondent, was deliberately assaulted by an intruder in the respondent's mine when the worker got down from the rail vehicle which he was driving to change the points on the rails. The incident which had given the intruder a grudge against the appellant had occurred some time before the assault and was a personal matter not in any way related to his employment. The Workers' Compensation Board awarded compensation but, upon a case stated, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia by a majority (Wolff C.J. and…

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 Weston v Great Boulder Gold Mines Ltd 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: [1964] HCA 59
Decision Date: 15 October 1964

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Weston against the decision of the Great Boulder Gold Mines Ltd. The dispute concerned the validity of certain resolutions passed at a general meeting of the company, which Weston alleged were invalid and oppressive.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the resolutions, which effectively removed Weston from his position as a director and altered the company's articles of association in a manner detrimental to his interests, were passed in accordance with the company's constitution and whether they constituted oppressive conduct under the relevant legislation.

The Court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the company's articles of association and the provisions of the Companies Act 1961 (WA) concerning director appointments and general meetings. The judges analysed the procedures followed for calling and conducting the meeting, the validity of the proxies used, and the nature of the resolutions passed. They considered whether the company had acted within its powers and whether the actions taken were oppressive to Weston as a minority shareholder. The Court applied principles of company law relating to corporate governance, shareholder rights, and the statutory prohibition of oppressive conduct.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the resolutions were invalid and that the conduct of the company was oppressive. The Court made orders setting aside the resolutions and granting other relief to Weston.

Orders