COMPENSATION AWARD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21130, 12 March 1932, Page 14

COMPENSATION AWARD.

JURISDICTION CHALLENGED. ARBITRATION COURT'S POWERS. COMPANY'S MQTION DISMISSED. [BY TELEGRAPH.—press association.] WELLINGTON, Friday. Tlio Court of Appeal to-clay heard a motion for a writ of prohibition brought against Mr. Justice F razor and Messrs. C. W. Primo and A. L. Montcith, assessors of tile Court of Arbitration, to restrain them from entering and enforcing a judgment in an action brought by Florence May Raddiffe, of Wellington, widow, against the Canadian Knight and Whippet Motor Company, Limited, on the ground that in giving judgment in that action the Court of Arbitration acted beyond its jurisdiction. While engaged in the business of the company, Wilson Harold Raddiffe, motor salesman, was killed in a motor accident and subsequently his ' widow took proceedings against his employers, claiming compensation under the Workers' Compensation Act. It was contended on behalf of the company that deceased's salary amounted to more than £4OO per annum. The Court, however, ruled otherwise, and awarded compensation of £IOOO and funeral expenses. Case lor the Company. Alternatively, the present plaintiff company asked that proceedings be moved into the Court of Appeal and that the judgment be quashed. On tho Bench to day were the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, Mr. Justice Herdman, Mr. Justice McGregor, Mr. Justice Blair and Mr. Justice Smith. In opening the case for the plaintiff company counsel submitted that the question whether or not a person was a " worker" within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922, was a question going to the root of the jurisdiction of the inferior Court, and therefore was reviewable by the Court of Appeal on a writ of prohibition. Counsel contended that the Court of Arbitration had given itself jurisdiction by a decision which was wrong in point of law, that the Court had allowed certain expenditure by deceased and deducted it from his gross earnings, thereby reducing Ins salary to a sum of less than £4OO. This expenditure was not supported by evidence and there was nothing bofore the lower Court which entitled it to make a definite finding that a specific sum had been expended. The question whether this expenditure was properly decluctable was a question of law affecting the jurisdiction of the Court, submitted counsel, and if it had been wrongly decided the Court of Appeal had power to set aside the judgment. Appeal Court's Decision. At the conclusion of the case for the plaintiff company judgment was delivered [ d'smissing the motion, with costs. The Chief Justice said thatr if proceedings in the case were by way of appeal it would be open for the Court of Appeal to decide whether entertainment expenses were properly deducted by the Court of Arbitration in determining whether deceased was a worker or not. The Workers' Compensation Act, 1922, however, expressly stated that no appeal would lie from the decision of the Court of Arbitration except in cases where the Court acted without jurisdiction. It was clearly within the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration to determine whether deceased was a worker or not, and even if in deciding the question the Court came to ar> 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 the defendants.