Maksymczuk v Gillespie Bros Pty Ltd [1957] HCA 89

Maksymczuk v Gillespie Bros Pty Ltd [1957] HCA 89

Because the proviso to s. 7 (1) (b) is an affirmative provision imposing liability on the employer where compensation would otherwise be unavailable due to a substantial interruption, deviation or break in the journey, ordinary principles place the burden of proving the proviso's conditions on the applicant for...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Workers' Compensation Appeal / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From an Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales Answering a Question on Burden of Proof Raised by Special Case From the Workers' Compensation Commission
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['burden of Proof' 'journey Injury Compensation' 'substantial Interruption or Deviation' 'material Increase in Risk']
["workers' Compensation" 'evidence'] ['burden of Proof' 'journey Injury Compensation' 'substantial Interruption or Deviation' 'material Increase in Risk']

Source-derived case record

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 to the High Court of Australia From an Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales Answering a Question on Burden of Proof Raised by Special Case From the Workers' Compensation Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether, under the proviso to s. 7 (1) (b) of the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1954, the burden of proving that the risk of injury was not materially increased by reason of a substantial interruption, substantial deviation or other break in a journey lies on the applicant for compensation or on the employer."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the proviso to s. 7 (1) (b) is an affirmative provision imposing liability on the employer where compensation would otherwise be unavailable due to a substantial interruption, deviation or break in the journey, ordinary principles place the burden of proving the proviso's conditions on the applicant for compensation. The Supreme Court was therefore right to hold that the applicant bore the burden of proving that the risk of injury was not materially increased.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.' 'The Court did not interfere with the order as it stood.']