Butt v John W Eaton Limited [1920] HCA 72

High Court of Australia|1920-07-01|Before: Wade JJ, Ferguson J

H.C. or A. Workmen's Compensation - Proceedings to recover - Failure to make claim

1: i ST, eran eral rr Arpuicayt, asp JOHN W. EATON LIMITED . . . Responvext,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

injury shall not be maintainable hhas been made within six months from the occurrence ofthe ac

to make a claim within the period above specified shall not be a bar tot

'maintenance of such proceedings if it is found that the failure was o

bby mistake, absence from the State, or other reasonable cause.'

On the hearing of an application for compensation in respect of

applicant had not made a claim within the time limited by se. 6

trator found that the applicant's failure to make a claim within that

due to a certain cause which was different from that which the his evidence expressly stated.

Hala, that there was evidence to support the arbitrator's finding

'Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales : Bull v. John Ld., 20 8.R, (N.S.W.), 559, reversed.

'Appear from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Am application was made under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1916 (N.S.W.) by Frederick Butt to a District Court Judge to determine the amount of compensation payable to the applicant by John W. Eaton Ltd., in whose employment the applicant was, he alleging that he had sustained personal injury by 'accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on 20th March 1920. No notice of the alleged accident was given to the respondent, nor was any claim for compensation made, until 23rd October 1919, and at the hearing of the application the respondent denied liability on the ground (inter alia) that the claim for com- pensation was not made within the time limited by the Act. 'At the hearing the applicant in his evidence stated that the reason "why he did not make a claim for compensation within six months from the accident was that he had given notice to a certain sick and 'accident fund established by the employees and had been paid a 'weekly allowance out of the fund for six months, and that he believed that that was sufficient notice of claim. He also in his evidence ated that he could not claim compensation until he was entitled toit; that he was not entitled to it until he was told that he was totally incapacitated ; that he had always been a strong man and thought that he would soon be able to go to work again ; and that although the doctors had told him it was going to be a long job he did not understand that that meant that it was going to be a per- 'manent incapacity.

The District Court Judge found that the applicant was of opinion that he would get better and would not require to give any notice of claim for compensation; and he held that that was reasonable cause for not making the claim, He then awarded compensation at the rate of £1 10s. 3d. a week.

From that determination the respondent appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Full Court by a majority (Pring and Wade JJ. Ferguson J. dissenting) held that as the applicant had explicitly given a reason for not making a claim which was not the reason

found by the District Court Judge, his finding was contrary to evidenee and there was no evidence to support it. The Court

H.C. or A. therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the award eo, W. Eaton Ltd. (1). Ber From that decision the applicant now appealed to the

Jors We Earox" - _Bavin (with him Mason), for the appellant.

'Tae Cover was unanimously of opinion that there ws to support the finding of the District Court Judge.

Appeal allowed. Judgment appealed versed and award of the Dist

Solicitors for the appellant, Sullivan Brothers, j Solicitors for the respondent, Norton Smith & Co,"

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (23 paragraphs)