COMPENSATION CLAIM FAILS

Evening Star, Issue 22365, 15 June 1936, Page 12

COMPENSATION CLAIM FAILS

CARRIER'S CASE AGAINST GROWN CONTRACT OF SERVICE HOT PROVED Judgment has been given by tho Arbitration Court in tbe case in which Henry Kdward Fry, carrier, of Waikouaiti, claimed compensation from tho Crown in respect of a fracture of tho right ankle sustained on March 11, /935 while he was allegedly employed as a servant .of the respondent in the carriage of camp requirements from the military camp at Orbell’s to the Waikouaiti railway station. Tho decision of the court, delivered by His Honour Mr Justice Page, states that the main question calling for decision was whether tho suppliant’s status was that of a worker within the Workers’ Compensation Act, 1922, or of an independent contractor. After reviewing tho nature of tho work. His Honour went on to say that evidence was called for tho respondent showing that it was the common practice of carriers in the district to quote and to charge according to the time occupied in carrying operations. The question was whether the relationship existing under tho agreement for the work was one of employer and workei*, or one of principal and independent contractor. The facts in the present case all pointed to the view that the relationship was one of principal and independent contractor, rather than ono of employer and worker. The suppliant was a man carrying on an independent calling as a common carrier. He provided the truck and bore the expense of running it The agreement was one for the bringing about of a given result—the carriage of the whole of the goods to and from tho camp site. This was a contract for tho performance of services rather than a contract of service. The suppliant could have delegated the carrying to another. Had he been in a larger way of business, with' other trucks and a staff of drivers, there was nothing in the agreement that would have prevented him from sending one of his drivers to perform tho carrying. _ The lespondent had no power to dismiss the suppliant. The contract was for the doing of the whole of tho carrying, and if during the operations the suppliant had been stopped by the respondent and prevented from continuing, he would have had a right of action for breach of contract. Payment was made by a lump sum after the whole of the carrying contracted for was finished. With regard to the right of detailed control over the manner in which the carrying was to be done, it would be found on examination that very little of that existed. No semblance of control was exercisable over the carrying from Dunedin and from Merton railway station. The suppliant did those operations at such time and in such manner as he chose, subject only to the implied stipulation that they must ho done in time for the camp. As to the carrying from and to tho Waikouaiti railway station, it was inherent in the nature of the contract that this work should be done promptly on arrival of the advance party to pitch camp, and on the eventual striking of the camp. The suppliant was told the _ order in which the goods were required, and the position in the camp in which they were to be deposited, and, as he needed help for the loading and unloading he was told when to commence in the mornings and when to cease in the evenings. ’ v , Beyond the requirements above detailed the suppliant did his carrying in such manner as to him seemed best. Ho controlled the method of handling the goods and the manner of loading, handling, driving, and unloading his truck; and generally the manner of performing his duties under the contract. No one had a right to dictate to him in that regard. The circumstance that he was asked to move some things from one site in _ the camp to another, and to assist with the carrying for the medical corps, did not alter his status. The suppliant had failed to show that ho was a worker employed under a contract of service within tho meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Judgment must therefore for the respondent, with costs to be fixed on application. At the hearing of the case Mr P. ,S. Anderson appeared for the suppliant and Mr F. B. Adams for the respondent.