Commonwealth v Hollis [1968] HCA 79

Commonwealth v Hollis [1968] HCA 79

The respondent remained a living-in member of his Army unit at Puckapunyal Camp throughout the weekend. When he was injured while returning from a dance to the camp to sleep, he was returning to the place where he lived and worked and, under the majority decision in Adcock v. The Commonwealth, s. 9A did not apply to him. The District Court award of compensation therefore should not have been made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Appeal / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From a District Court Decision Under S. 20 of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930 1967
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Topics
["commonwealth Employees' Compensation" 'injury While Travelling to or From Employment' 'living in Member of the Defence Forces' "application of S. 9 a of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930 1967"]
["workers' Compensation" 'administrative Law' 'military Law'] ["commonwealth Employees' Compensation" 'injury While Travelling to or From Employment' 'living in Member of the Defence Forces' "application of S. 9 a of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930 1967"]

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

Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Appeal / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From a District Court Decision Under S. 20 of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930 1967

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a member of the Regular Army who lived and worked at Puckapunyal Camp was, when injured while returning from a dance to the camp to sleep, travelling to or from his employment by the Commonwealth within s. 9A of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act 1930-1967." "Whether the majority decision in Adcock v. The Commonwealth governed the respondent's claim for compensation under s. 9A."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent remained a living-in member of his Army unit at Puckapunyal Camp throughout the weekend. When he was injured while returning from a dance to the camp to sleep, he was returning to the place where he lived and worked and, under the majority decision in Adcock v. The Commonwealth, s. 9A did not apply to him. The District Court award of compensation therefore should not have been made.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' 'Order of the District Court discharged.' 'In lieu thereof, order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs.']