Wells v English Electric Company of Australia Ltd [1926] HCA 37

Wells v English Electric Company of Australia Ltd [1926] HCA 37

It was not established by the facts that the respondent 'penalized' the apprentice within sec. 134 Defence Act 1903-1918. Doubt remained as to whether the company had any discretion or simply followed the indenture, and it was unclear any disadvantage was actually sustained by the apprentice. Appeal dismissed.

Parties
Informant/appellant: Frank Elwyn Wells; Respondent/defendant: English Electric Company of Australia Ltd.; Apprentice/employee: Neville Alec Palmer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 1926
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From Court of Quarter Sessions, New South Wales, to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Apprenticeship, Compulsory Military Training, Penalization of Employees, Statutory Employee Protections
Employment Law Military Law Statutory Interpretation Apprenticeship Compulsory Military Training Penalization of Employees Statutory Employee Protections

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank Elwyn Wells

Informant/appellant

English Electric Company of Australia Ltd.

Respondent/defendant

Neville Alec Palmer

Apprentice/employee

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From Court of Quarter Sessions, New South Wales, to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether requiring an apprentice to serve additional days for absence due to compulsory military service constitutes penalization under sec. 134 of the Defence Act 1903-1918.
  2. 2 Whether an apprentice is an 'employee' for purposes of sec. 134 of the Defence Act.
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'penalize' within sec. 134.

Ratio Decidendi

It was not established by the facts that the respondent 'penalized' the apprentice within sec. 134 Defence Act 1903-1918. Doubt remained as to whether the company had any discretion or simply followed the indenture, and it was unclear any disadvantage was actually sustained by the apprentice. Appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.