N.Z. WIDOW’S APPEAL TO PRIVY COUNCIL

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29251, 8 July 1960, Page 9

N.Z. WIDOW’S APPEAL TO PRIVY COUNCIL

(NX. Press Association—CopyriohU

LONDON, July fl. The widow of a pilot killed in a flying accident in Canterbury. New Zealand, in March, 1956, appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council today from a ruling of the New Zealand Court of Appeal that she was not entitled to compensation in respect of his death under the Workers’ Compensation Act The pilot Mr Geoffrey Woodhouse Lee, was flying an Auster aircraft in an aerial topdressing operation when the aircraft stalled and crashed bursting into flames. Mrs Catherine Lee, of Christchurch, his widow, claimed £2480 compensation on behalf of herself and four infant children, alleging that the accident occurred in the course of his employment by Lee’s Air Farming, Ltd., a company formed by Mr Lee in- 1854. He held 2990 of the £3OOO issued shares. He was also appointed governing director. The Judge of the Compensation Court of New Zealand stated a case for the opinion of the Court of Appeal, which said that on the facts ot the case Mr Lee could not hold the office of governing director and also be a servant of the company. Mr A. C. Perry, of the New Zealand Bar, for the widow, said that the Workers’ Compensation Act provided for the compulsory insurance by an employer against liability under the act Premiums paid by the company for 1954-55 calculated on the amount of salary due to Mr Lee were accepted, and the present contest while technically between the widow and the company, was in effect between the widow and the insurers. The company’s articles of association provided that “full government and control" should be invested in Mr Lee. They also provided that the company should employ him as its chief pilot and that the “rules of law applicable to the relationship of master and servant should apply.” He was paid a salary of £l5OO a year but this was later amended to read “a salary to be arranged by the governing director.” Mr Perry said that the aircraft was owned by the company. Mr Lee was paid wages. The company insured him as a servant and the insurance was accepted. On these facts alone there could be no doubt that he was a servant of the company, but the issue was whether he could be a “servant” when also holding the office of governing director. Mr Justice North, giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, said that on Mr Lee “lay the duty both of giving orders and obeying them.” The Appeal Court found that the relationship of master and servant had not been created, but it was the widow’s case that there was no incompatibility between the position of governing director of the company and the position of a servant of the company. If these had been a change of shareholders or a liquidation of the company, the company's latent power of control would then emerge and be exercised, said Mr Perry. Mr J. le Quesne, also appear-

in* for Mrs Lee, said the Court of Appeal had said that In effect it was impnwihte for the company to give any orders to Mr Lae. but earlier it had add by implication that the company was sufficiently independent of Mr Lee to be able to make a contract with him. Mr la Quesne submitted “that these two propositions contradict each other.” Mr Martin Jukes, QC, for the company, said the problem which the Court of Appeal had to consider was not a new one. It had arisen in cases decided both in New South Wales and New Zealand and had always been answered in the same way. It was implicit in the submissions made on behalf of the widow that this lon* line of authorities was wren*. The bearin* was adjourned until tomorrow.