JUDGMENT GIVEN

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27259, 9 December 1949, Page 8

JUDGMENT GIVEN

IMPORTANT TEST CASE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT INTERPRETATION OF 1947 AMENDMENT PA WELLINGTON, Dec. 8. The Court of Appeal today gave judgment in an important test case on the interpretation of the 1947 amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Act. The case was stated for the opinion of the Court of Appeal by the judge of the Compensation Court and involved Tui Fenton, of Oaonui, Taranaki (plaintiff) and Thomas Borthwick and Sons, Australasia. Ltd. (defendant).

The Court of Appeal, in answering questions submitted by the Compensation Court, hqld that Fenton was entitled to have his compensation assessed on the basis of loss of earnings, ahd was not obliged to accept an award based on a comparison with a schedule injury. He is thus to reecive £2 7s Id weekly until the award is reviewed or until he dies or has earlier received in compensation a total of £ISOO.

This decision, which is of great importance to workers and insurers; establishes that the 1947 amendment of the Workers’ Compensation Act has the effect of conferring on a worker who has received injury for which compensation is payable, and which is not a schedule injury, but creates loss of wages, a right to receive compensation so long as his loss of earnings exists, until the sum of £ISOO has been paid him. This applies whether the injury is a minor or severe one, and thus a worker sustaining a minor non-schedule injury may ultimately receive far more by way of compensation than a worker who has sustained a schedule injury of a more serious character.

Fenton was employed as a slaughterman when he -cut the tendons of the middle and ring fingers of his right hand. This impaired his grip to such an extent that he could not continue as a slaughterman, but for other types of work his disability was only slight. As a result of this injury his earnings dropped by £3 2s 9sd a week. He issued proceedings under the Workers’ Compensation Act, claiming an award for weekly compensation at the rate of £2 7s Id, being 75 per cent, of his loss of earnings. When the case came before the Compensation Court counsel for Fenton contended that as a result of the 1947 amendment of the Workers’ Compensation Act all time limits on the operation of orders for weekly compensation had been abolished and that the order sought by Fenton should run for the balance of his working life.

For the defendant, it was pointed out that this contention would involve ultimately the payment of £ISOO for this minor injury, as had Fenton completely lost the • two fingers by amputation he would receive a maximum of £216 on the basis of a schedule injury. The judge of the Compensation Court expressed the opinion that the point raised in the plaintiff’s submission was of the very greatest, importance to workers and to those responsible for paying compensation, and he decided to reserve the question for the Court of Appeal. Sibsidiary questions raised in the case .stated related to the power of the court to treat a non-schedule injury on the basis of a schedule one under the powers given by section 41 (3) of the 1947 amendment.