COMPANY MUST PAY.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20273, 6 April 1934, Page 1

COMPANY MUST PAY.

Privy Council’s Decision in Compensation Case. INJURED WORKER’S CLAIM. SYDNEY, March 27 The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has dismissed the appeal of the Australian Woollen Mills, Ltd., against the judgment of the High Court under the Workers’ Compensation Act in the case of Smith, one of the company’s employees. The decision of the Privy Council in dismissing the appeal of the Australian Woollen Mills, Ltd., against the judg- | ment of the High Court, given re- | cently, establishes an important legal j decision as t o the liability of em- ! ployers to pay compensation to injured workmen, and, incidentally, it is the first appeal of this kind which has gone to the Privy Council since the enactment of the Workers’ Compensation Act of 1926. The decision marks -he final chapter in a long legal battle which commenced before the Workers’ Compensation Commission of New South Wales in 1932, when Smith, who was employed by Australian Woollen Mills, Ltd., at Marrickville as a card-minder, instituted proceedings against the company for compensation for incapacity, following upon certain injuries which he alleged he received at the mills. The facts were that at the time cf the injury and for a number of years previously, he had been suffering from diabetes, for which he had been receiving insulin injections. The diabetes was controlled by insulin, but on the day in question he suffered an insulin reaction, and, in falling, struck his ribs against the guard-rails of the machine on which he was w’orking. He received injuries to bis ribs, which incapacitated him for work. The Commission awarded him compensation for that incapacity, but the company appealed to the Supreme Court, which set aside the award. Smith then appealed to the High Court, which unanimously upheld the appeal and restored thj award of compensation. In its judgment the High Court applied the reasoning of the Privy Council in what are known as the New Zealand earthquake cases, associated with the Hawke’s Bay disaster of 1930 and held that the workman was entitled to compensation bv reason of the injuries he received on his employer’s premises, notwithstanding the fact that his faint was caused by an ideopathic condition not associated with his work. The company then appealed to the I nvy Council, but the • appeal, as stated, was dismissed.