MARSHALL and ANOR T/AS THE PARTNERSHIP B AND J MARSHALL v ANDREWS and ANOR [1995] NSWCA 274

MARSHALL and ANOR T/AS THE PARTNERSHIP B AND J MARSHALL v ANDREWS and ANOR [1995] NSWCA 274

By majority (Kirby ACJ, Handley JA, Rolfe AJA dissenting in part), the appeal was dismissed. The Marshalls were 'the principal' under s20(1) and therefore liable for compensation as if the worker had been directly employed by them, because the statutory language and purpose allow for the principal's liability to extend to cases where there is a chain of contractors and the worker is employed 'in the execution of the work', not necessarily by the direct contractor. The order for reimbursement to WorkCover Authority was upheld as not erroneous.

Parties
Appellants: Bruce Lisle Marshall and Janet Mary Marshall trading as The Partnership B and J Marshall; First Respondent: Ian Henry Andrews; Second Respondent: WorkCover Authority of New South Wales; Applicant (before Primary Judge): Arthur Hickey; Contractor; Not Party to This Appeal: Robert John Smith
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 1995
Procedural Posture
Workers' Compensation Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs (by majority)
Legal Topics
Principal and Contractor Liability, Uninsured Employer, Agricultural Work, Interpretation of Workers Compensation Act 1987 S20
Workers' Compensation Employment Law Principal and Contractor Liability Uninsured Employer Agricultural Work Interpretation of Workers Compensation Act 1987 S20

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce Lisle Marshall and Janet Mary Marshall trading as The Partnership B and J Marshall

Appellants

Ian Henry Andrews

First Respondent

WorkCover Authority of New South Wales

Second Respondent

Arthur Hickey

Applicant (before Primary Judge)

Robert John Smith

Contractor; Not Party to This Appeal

Procedural Posture

Workers' Compensation Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is 'the principal' for the purposes of Workers Compensation Act 1987, s20?
  2. 2 Does liability under s20(1) attach to persons higher in a contracting chain?
  3. 3 Must the injured worker be employed by the contractor under s20(1)?

Ratio Decidendi

By majority (Kirby ACJ, Handley JA, Rolfe AJA dissenting in part), the appeal was dismissed. The Marshalls were 'the principal' under s20(1) and therefore liable for compensation as if the worker had been directly employed by them, because the statutory language and purpose allow for the principal's liability to extend to cases where there is a chain of contractors and the worker is employed 'in the execution of the work', not necessarily by the direct contractor. The order for reimbursement to WorkCover Authority was upheld as not erroneous.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs (by majority)

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Reimbursement order by the principal (the Marshalls) to WorkCover Authority for compensation paid by the Authority is upheld.