Athval Management Pty Ltd v Doherty [2000] NSWCA 277

Athval Management Pty Ltd v Doherty [2000] NSWCA 277

The trial judge erred in law by misdirecting himself that it was sufficient to find that the worker intended to go to work when she left the house or went to the carport, and by failing to determine whether that intention was operative when the boundary was crossed, which s 10(4) fixes as the commencement of the relevant journey. Because the necessary factual finding had not been made and the answer was not inevitable, the proper relief was to set aside the award and remit the matter for rehearing rather than enter an award for the employer.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Workers Compensation Appeal / Appeal From an Award of the Compensation Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Compensation Court award set aside; matter remitted for rehearing.
Legal Topics
['journey Injury' 'meaning of Journey Under S 10(4) Workers Compensation Act 1987' "worker's Intention at Commencement of Journey" 'error of Law' 'misdirection and Non Direction' 'remitter']
['workers Compensation' 'appellate Procedure'] ['journey Injury' 'meaning of Journey Under S 10(4) Workers Compensation Act 1987' "worker's Intention at Commencement of Journey" 'error of Law' 'misdirection and Non Direction' 'remitter']

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

Procedural Posture

Workers Compensation Appeal / Appeal From an Award of the Compensation Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the worker was injured on a compensable journey within s 10 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 when the injury occurred outside the boundary of her place of abode after the car moved unexpectedly down the driveway.' "Whether the trial judge erred by treating the worker's intention when she left the house or went to the carport as sufficient, rather than determining her intention when the boundary of the land was crossed under s 10(4)." 'Whether any error was an error of law appealable under s 32(1) of the Compensation Court Act 1984.' 'Whether the Court of Appeal should enter an award for the employer or remit the matter for rehearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in law by misdirecting himself that it was sufficient to find that the worker intended to go to work when she left the house or went to the carport, and by failing to determine whether that intention was operative when the boundary was crossed, which s 10(4) fixes as the commencement of the relevant journey. Because the necessary factual finding had not been made and the answer was not inevitable, the proper relief was to set aside the award and remit the matter for rehearing rather than enter an award for the employer.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Compensation Court award set aside; matter remitted for rehearing.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'The award of Judge Bishop in the Compensation Court of New South Wales dated 16 November 1999 is set aside.' 'The matter is remitted to the Compensation Court for re-hearing.' "The respondent (applicant below) is to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal." "The respondent (applicant below), if...