McNamee v Partridge [1959] HCA 43

McNamee v Partridge [1959] HCA 43

By majority, the appellant remained a worker employed by the respondent for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act notwithstanding that s. 6 (5) (a) also deemed him to be employed by the principal. The provision created a notional employment relationship with the principal but did not impliedly exclude the actual employment relationship with the contractor. The Workers' Compensation Commission therefore did not err in law in holding that the appellant was a worker employed by and in the course of his employment with the respondent.

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 on a Case Stated by the Workers' Compensation Commission of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Topics
['deemed Employment Under Workers Compensation Legislation' 'contractor and Principal Liability' 'actual Employer and Notional Employer' 'case Stated']
['workers Compensation' 'statutory Interpretation' 'employment Law'] ['deemed Employment Under Workers Compensation Legislation' 'contractor and Principal Liability' 'actual Employer and Notional Employer' 'case Stated']

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 to the High Court of Australia From an Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on a Case Stated by the Workers' Compensation Commission of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether s. 6 (5) (a) of the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1954 N.S.W. deemed a worker employed by a contractor to be employed by the principal to the exclusion of the contractor for the purposes of the Act." "Whether the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in law in holding that the appellant was a worker employed by and in the course of his employment with the respondent at the relevant time." "Whether the respondent's fencing contract, involving felling trees and supplying posts and strainers, fell within s. 6 (5) (a)."]

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the appellant remained a worker employed by the respondent for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act notwithstanding that s. 6 (5) (a) also deemed him to be employed by the principal. The provision created a notional employment relationship with the principal but did not impliedly exclude the actual employment relationship with the contractor. The Workers' Compensation Commission therefore did not err in law in holding that the appellant was a worker employed by and in the course of his employment with the respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court discharged.' 'In lieu thereof order that the question in the case stated be answered No.' 'The respondent in this Court, the appellant in the Supreme Court, pay the costs of the case stated.']