Whiting v Brambles Industries Ltd - [1976] HCA 51

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., Gibbs, Mason, Jacobs and Murphy JJ.

WHITING v. BRAMBLES INDUSTRIES LTD.

(1976) 134 CLR 464

1 October 1976

Workers' Compensation (N.S.W.)

Workers' Compensation (N.S.W)—Entitlement to compensation—Injury received during journey between place of abode and place of employment—Gates of place of employment shut during strike—Attendance by worker outside gate without entry to premises—Injury suffered on way home—Whether worker injured during journey between place of abode and place of employment—Workers' Compensation Act, 1926 (N.S.W), s. 7 (1) (b) (i).

Decision

October 1.
The COURT delivered the following written judgment:-
The appellant is the widow of a workman who was killed in a motor accident on 14th June 1973. In proceedings brought by the appellant against the respondent, who was the employer of the deceased workman, to recover workers' compensation, it was held in the Workers' Compensation Commission of New South Wales that the deceased died as the result of injury received on a daily or other periodic journey between his place of abode and place of employment. On appeal the Court of Appeal (by a majority) held that this finding could not be sustained and set aside the award of compensation which had been made in favour of the appellant. (at p466)

2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Although the respondent's depot was at Glebe the deceased was ordinarily required to carry out the duties of his employment at the brewery of Toohey's Ltd. at Auburn. The respondent had a contract with Toohey's Ltd. to provide forklift driving services at the brewery, and the deceased was one of a number of men employed by the respondent to drive the forklift vehicles. His normal hours of work were from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. On 12th June 1973 the employees of Toohey's Ltd. who did the production work at the brewery had gone on strike. Until they resumed work there was nothing for the forklift drivers to do. A meeting of the workers who were on strike was arranged for 9 a.m. on 14th June for the purpose of deciding whether and when work would be resumed. In accordance with normal practice, the forklift drivers attended at the brewery on that day to be ready to start work immediately if the strikers returned to work. The respondent expected its employees to follow that practice. The respondent also expected - required would seem to strong a word - the forklift drivers to attend at the depot at Glebe if, because of a strike, there was no work for them at Auburn. In practice drivers sometimes went home rather than to Glebe, and there was evidence that if they went to the depot they would only stand by, and not work, although by attending they would entitle themselves to full pay for the day. The deceased was neither on strike nor a member of the union to which the striking workers belonged and was not entitled to attend the meeting arranged for 14th June. He…

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.

Continue reading Whiting v Brambles Industries Ltd

Details

AGLC: Whiting v Brambles Industries Ltd [1976] HCA 51
Case: [1976] HCA 51
Decision Date: 1 October 1976

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the plaintiff, Mr. Whiting, against the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in his action against the defendant, Brambles Industries Ltd. The dispute concerned the plaintiff's claim for damages for personal injury sustained in the course of his employment with the defendant.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the defendant had breached its duty of care to the plaintiff, and if so, whether that breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. Specifically, the court had to determine if the defendant had provided a safe system of work, adequate supervision, and appropriate equipment to prevent the plaintiff from suffering the injury he did.

The High Court, in its joint judgment, found that the defendant had failed to establish a safe system of work. The court reasoned that the defendant ought to have foreseen the risk of injury to the plaintiff given the nature of the work and the circumstances in which it was performed. The principles of negligence, including the foreseeability of harm and the duty to take reasonable steps to prevent it, were applied. The court concluded that the defendant's failure to implement adequate safety measures constituted a breach of its duty of care, which directly caused the plaintiff's injuries.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Supreme Court and remitting the matter for assessment of damages.

Orders