Cain v Malone [1942] HCA 20

Cain v Malone [1942] HCA 20

The payment of compensation to an infant worker under the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1938 (N.S.W.) only triggers the commencement of the limitation period under sec. 63(3)(a) if it is shown that receipt of the compensation was for the benefit of the infant; accordingly, the earlier decision in Farmer & Co. Ltd. v. Griffiths should be followed and not overruled.

Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Maisie Lisbeth Malone (by her next friend, Hector Malone); Defendants/appellants: George James Cain and Eric Colin Eggins (trading as Modern Laundry)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court), on Demurrer
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Infant Plaintiff, Receipt of Compensation, Overruling Precedent
Workers' Compensation Personal Injury Tort Limitation of Actions Infant Plaintiff Receipt of Compensation Overruling Precedent

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maisie Lisbeth Malone (by her next friend, Hector Malone)

Plaintiff/respondent

George James Cain and Eric Colin Eggins (trading as Modern Laundry)

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court), on Demurrer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does receipt of compensation by an infant worker automatically trigger the limitation period under sec. 63(3)(a) of the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1938 (N.S.W.), or must it be shown that receipt was for the benefit of the infant?
  2. 2 Should the High Court overrule its earlier decision in Farmer & Co. Ltd. v. Griffiths regarding the effect of such compensation payments to infants?

Ratio Decidendi

The payment of compensation to an infant worker under the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1938 (N.S.W.) only triggers the commencement of the limitation period under sec. 63(3)(a) if it is shown that receipt of the compensation was for the benefit of the infant; accordingly, the earlier decision in Farmer & Co. Ltd. v. Griffiths should be followed and not overruled.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.