Molinaro v Robinson [1966] HCA 12

Molinaro v Robinson [1966] HCA 12

The Board's conclusion that the applicant was a worker within the meaning of s. 3 of the Act was justified by evidence; the time limitation in s. 56(3)(a) only applies to requesting a case, not stating it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['case Stated Procedure' 'time Limitation for Stating a Case' 'definition of Worker']
['workers Compensation'] ['case Stated Procedure' 'time Limitation for Stating a Case' 'definition of Worker']

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

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the case stated was incompetent due to timing under s. 56(3)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1958' "Whether evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the applicant was a worker within the meaning of s. 3 of the Act"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Board's conclusion that the applicant was a worker within the meaning of s. 3 of the Act was justified by evidence; the time limitation in s. 56(3)(a) only applies to requesting a case, not stating it.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Order of Supreme Court discharged' "Questions stated to be answered that there was evidence justifying the Board's conclusion" 'Costs of proceedings in Supreme Court to be borne by respondent' 'Appeal allowed with costs']