© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[1960] HCA 81
High Court of Australia
1960-07-01
Windeyer JJ, McTiernan J, Menzies JJ, Fullagar J, Windeyer J
Original judgment source is linked above.
For the reasons which I have given in Fisher's Case [1] I am of opinion that the relevant date is the date of the worker's incapacity, and, as I have said, it is agreed that that date is the date of the certificate of the Medical Board, viz. 19th October 1954. The provision to be applied is, therefore, s. 8 (1) (a) as it stood in 1954.
In my opinion, the appeal should be allowed, and the questions asked by the case stated should be answered: 1 (a) No; (b) No; (c) No; 2 No.
In this case the appellant is the widow of a worker who was a coalminer until 1947, and at some unascertained time while working in that capacity contracted pneumoconiosis. It is admitted by the respondent, who was the employer who last employed the worker in coal-mining, that incapacity resulted from the disease on 19th October 1954. The worker died in 1956, and the respondent concedes that thereupon the appellant as his widow became entitled to an award of compensation under the provisions of par. (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 8 of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1926 N.S.W., as amended. That paragraph was amended in 1948, 1951 and 1953. The Workers' Compensation Commission held that the paragraph was to be applied as it stood after 1953. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, considered that it should be applied as it stood in 1947.
For reasons similar to those which we have stated in the case of Fisher v. Hebburn Ltd. [1] , we are of the opinion that the paragraph as it stood after the 1953 amendment was the provision applicable to the case. We would therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Supreme Court insofar as it answered the questions in the stated case, and answer the questions: (1) No; (2) No.
I agree that the appeal should be allowed and that the questions in the stated case should be answered as proposed.
Wyper
Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd
High Court of Australia McTiernan Fullagar, Kitto, Menzies and Windeyer JJ. Wyper v Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd [1960] HCA 81