ALCATEL AUSTRALIA LTD v GRIFFITHS [1997] NSWCA 13

ALCATEL AUSTRALIA LTD v GRIFFITHS [1997] NSWCA 13

The appeal was allowed in part as the trial judge failed to determine correctly whether the risk of injury was materially increased due to the interruption commencing at 5pm after the function ended and the restaurant ceased being a place of employment. The matter must be remitted for further findings regarding the application of s10(1A), s10(1B), and s10(1C) Workers Compensation Act 1987, including whether intoxication contributed to the injury and whether any increased risk was connected with employment.

Parties
Appellant: Alcatel Australia Ltd; Respondent: Griffiths
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Decision
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Journey Claims, Statutory Interpretation, Workplace Injury, Fault and Intoxication
Workers Compensation Employment Law Journey Claims Statutory Interpretation Workplace Injury Fault and Intoxication

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alcatel Australia Ltd

Appellant

Griffiths

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injury occurred on a compensable statutory journey under s10 Workers Compensation Act 1987
  2. 2 Whether the risk of injury was materially increased due to an interruption unrelated to employment or the journey's purpose under s10(2)
  3. 3 The scope and application of deemed 'fault' provisions where the worker was intoxicated per s10(1B)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed in part as the trial judge failed to determine correctly whether the risk of injury was materially increased due to the interruption commencing at 5pm after the function ended and the restaurant ceased being a place of employment. The matter must be remitted for further findings regarding the application of s10(1A), s10(1B), and s10(1C) Workers Compensation Act 1987, including whether intoxication contributed to the injury and whether any increased risk was connected with employment.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Set aside the order of Truss CCJ which stood the matter over for further hearing to determine the worker's entitlement to weekly payments and lump sums under s66 and s67.
  • Remit the matter for further hearing on the issues of the application of s10(1A), s10(1B), and s10(1C) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 as they stood at the relevant time.