Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

COMPENSATION CLAIM

HARBOUR BOARD WORKERS'

ACTION.

A claim for compensation for injuries allegedly arising out of an accident in the course of his employment by William Tresidder, Harbour Board employee, was heard by the Arbitration Court to-day.

The plaintiff's statement of claim alleged that in November, 1925, working in the King's Wharf shed, he fell and injured his left knee and right wrist and the left side of his face. The plaintiff had since been totally disabled, aud was advised that total disablement would continue for some time, and that he might become permanently partially disabled. He claimed compensation from 10th February, 1925 to bo determined by the Court, £1 medical and surgical expenses, and costs. /

The defence was that the accident was not •orreotly described, and that it did not occur in the course of employment. The allegations of disablement were denied, and it was contended for the defence that on 27th March, 1926, up to which date the defendant board paid compensation under the' Workers' Compensation Act, 1922, the plaintiff had completely recovered from any accident which occurred in the course of his employment. Mr. 0. C. Mazengarb • appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell for the Wellington Harbour Board. After hearing the medical evidence, Mr. Justice Frazer said it was clear that there had been an unfortunate misunderstanding. The plaintiff had been offered work by the defendants, but had preferred to Tefer the advisability of taking it to his own doctor, Dr. Faulke, who advised him against climbing ladders or working in ships' holds, whereas it transpired now that the work offered, if investigated, would have proved-to be light sweeping. Dr. Faulke had apparently advised against the taking of the work without being aware what it was. As. it was not the Harbour Board which was responsible for the misunderstanding as to the nature of the work offered, judgment must be given for the defendant.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19260611.2.81

Bibliographic details

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 138, 11 June 1926, Page 8

Word Count
323

COMPENSATION CLAIM Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 138, 11 June 1926, Page 8

COMPENSATION CLAIM Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 138, 11 June 1926, Page 8

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert