COMPENSATION CLAIM

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 171, 15 April 1932, Page 7

COMPENSATION CLAIM

Accident on Waterfront CASE FOR APPEAL COURT Compensation for an accident which occurred in May, 1930, was Jaimed in the Arbitration Court on Wednesday, when John James Wilson, waterside worker, brought a case against Gannaway and Company, stevedores. Yesterday it was decided that the case should come before the Court of Appeal. The statement of claim set out that while plaintiff was working oil cargo in the hold of the Golden Cross, preparing a sling of cargo, a sling and cargo gear was lowered on to his head, knocking him face downward on the oil drums forming the cargo, and he thereby suffered injury. As the result of the accident he had suffered total disability, and was totally incapacitated for work, and would remain so for an indefinite time. It was admitted that defendant company had paid compensation for total Incapacity as the result of the accident until July 11, 1930. Plaintiff claimed a weekly payment of £3/18/3 for total incapacity for the period of the incapacity, and the costs of the proceedings, or other relief as the court should consider him entitled to. .The statement of defence was a denial of the allegations of plaintiff, and it was submitted, as a further defence, that if plajntiff was now suffering from anv incapacity it was not due to the accident of May 5, 1930, but to a later happening, and also that he had failed to commence his action within the time prescribed by the Workers’ Compensation Act. Counsel for plaintiff pointed out that the clearance which Wilson had signed was binding only if the worker had had independent medical and legal advice before signing it, and said that in this case he bad not received this. He had believed that he had signed away his claims, hence the delay in beginning an action. Counsel for the defendant applied for a nonsuit on the claim that the action had not been brought within the time allowed by the Act. Legal argument was heard, and the court adjourned. In view of the importance and farreaching effect of the case, counsel for defendant asked yesterday if the Court would state a case for the opinion of the Court of Appeal. The other counsel consented to this, and Mr. Justice Frazer intimated that during the adjournment he had been looking into the cases on the point, and decided to adopt the course suggested by counsel, as he found that there appeared to be a conflict upon the question of mistake, between the High Court of Australia and the English Court of Appeal.