MAFULU PTY LIMITED v MATHER [1988] NSWCA 87

MAFULU PTY LIMITED v MATHER [1988] NSWCA 87

There was evidence, however slight, upon which the Commissioner could conclude that a meeting of those with authority took place and that an agreement was made for the respondent and his wife to be employees of the company; under the relevant authorities, such a company director can be a 'worker' for workers' compensation purposes. Therefore, the Commissioner's factual finding could not be disturbed on an appeal limited to a question of law, and there was no error of law shown.

Parties
Appellant: Mafulu Pty Limited; Respondent: Mather
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 1988
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Second Appeal From Compensation Court, Which Had Itself Heard an Appeal From a Compensation Commissioner
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Definition of Worker, Company Director as Worker, Second Appeals on Questions of Law, Evidentiary Requirements on Appeal
Workers' Compensation Employment Law Company Law Definition of Worker Company Director as Worker Second Appeals on Questions of Law Evidentiary Requirements on Appeal

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mafulu Pty Limited

Appellant

Mather

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Second Appeal From Compensation Court, Which Had Itself Heard an Appeal From a Compensation Commissioner

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was evidence to support the Commissioner's conclusion that the respondent was a 'worker' of the appellant company under a contract of service for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner or Judge McGrath misunderstood or misapplied the statutory definition of 'worker'

Ratio Decidendi

There was evidence, however slight, upon which the Commissioner could conclude that a meeting of those with authority took place and that an agreement was made for the respondent and his wife to be employees of the company; under the relevant authorities, such a company director can be a 'worker' for workers' compensation purposes. Therefore, the Commissioner's factual finding could not be disturbed on an appeal limited to a question of law, and there was no error of law shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.