APPEAL COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 12 March 1932, Page 5

APPEAL COURT

COMPENSATION UPHELD. [PEG PBESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, March 11. The Court, of Appeal continued the hearing of the motion for a writ of prohibition brought against Mr. Jus ties Frazer, and Messrs. Prime and Monteith, assessors of the Court ot Arbitration, to restrain them from entering and enforcing judgment in the action brought by Florence May Radcliffe, of Wellington, widow, against the Canadian Knight and Whippet Motor Co., Ltd., on the ground that in giving judgment in that action, the Court of Arbitration acted beyond its jurisdiction. Whilst engaged in the business of the company, Wilson Harold Radcliffe, motor salesman, was killed in a motor accident. Subsequently his .widow took proceedings against his employers, claiming com pensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act. It was contended, on behalf of the company, -that Radcliffe was not a ‘‘worker” within the meaning of the Act, in that his salary amounted to more than £4OO per annum. The Court, however, ruled otherwise, and awarded compensation of £lOOO and funeral expenses. In opening the case for the plaintiff company, counsel submitted that the question as to whether or not a. person was a worker within the meaning of the Workers’ Compenesation Act, 1922. was a question going to the root of tho jurisdiction of an inferior Court, and was' therefore reviewable by the Court of Appeal, on a writ of prohibition. The Court of Arbitration . had given itself jurisdiction by the decision, which was wrong in point of law. That Court had allowed certain expenedituro by deceased, and deducted it from his gross earnings, thereby reducing his salary to a sum of .less than £4OO. This expenditure was not supported by the evidence, and there was nothing before the Lower Court which entitled it to make a definite finding, that a specific sum had been expended. The question wether this expediture was properly deductible, was a question of law affecting the jurisdiction of the Court, and, if it had been wrongly decided, the Court of Appeal had power to set aside the judgment. Judgment was delivered dismissing the plaintiff company’s motion, with costs. Sir Michael Myers said that: tho proceedings in this case were by way of appeal, and it would ue open for tho Court of Appeal to decide whether entertainment expenses were properly deducted by the Court of Arbitration, in determining whether the deceased was a worker or not. The Workers’ Compensation Act, 1922, ho'wevei\ expressly stated that no appeal would lie from the decision of the Court of Arbitration, except in cases where the Court acted without juris diction. It was clearly within the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration to determine whether the deceased was a. worker or not, and, even if in deciding the question, the Court came to an erroneous conclusion, the Court of Appeal had no power to quash it. Other members of the Bench agreed with the decision of the Chief Justice. Thirty guineas costs were allowed to tho defendants.