COMPENSATION AWARD

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21844, 5 July 1934, Page 13

COMPENSATION AWARD

FLOURMILL EMPLOYEE COURT DISMISSES APPEAL [by telegraph—OWN correspondent] "WELLINGTON, Wednesday An appeal for the reversal of a judgment of the Supreme Court at Auckland, by which a defendant was adjudged liable to pay to the plaintiff compensation under the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922, was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in an oral judgment delivered to-day. The Northern Roller Milling Company, Limited, Auckland, was the appellant, and James Patrick Wright, flourmill employee, Auckland, the respondent. The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Johnston were on the Bench. Mr. L. P. Leary appeared for the appellant and Mr. S. R. Mason for the respondent. In the Supreme Court Mr. Justice Ostler held that the company was liable to pay compensation under the Workers' Compensation Act in respect of the injury which Wright suffered. His Honor assessed compensation at £"748 10s 6d, subject to a deduction of £37 16s for costs, which, in his opinion, had been caused by Wright suing for damages instead of for compensation. A preliminary point was taken by Mr. Mason at the Appeal Court hearing that an appeal did not lie. He contended that there was an expx-ess prohibition against appeal within the terms of section 52 of the Workers' Compensation Act.

After hearing argument from both sides the Court sustained the objection raised by Mr. Mason and dismissed the appeal with costs against,,appellant.

On September <*l6, 1932, Wright, while engaged breaking down a stack of bags of wheat in the course of his employment by the Northern Roller Milling Company, was struck on fcho bead and injured by two bags of wheat falling upon him. For some days afterwards he suffered from severe headaches, and was absent from work for five days. During the following six months he worked continuously at his job, but lost weight and grew depressed and moody. Finally he developed meningitis, causing the loss of sight of both eyes, and became permanently and totally incapacitated from earning a livelihood.

He subsequently brought an action against the company, claiming £2500 general damages and £25 special damages, on the ground of negligence, or alternatively compensation nnder the Workers' Compensation Act. The claim for damages was abandoned during the course of the trial of tho action at Auckland.