Marshall v Whittaker's Building Supply Co [1963] HCA 26
The contract in question required not only the deceased's labour but also the employment of other labour and provision of power equipment for the job, and payment was according to the combined activity, not simply for the deceased's manual labour. Therefore, the remuneration could not in law be regarded as 'in substance a return for manual labour bestowed by him'; the deceased was not a worker within the meaning of the Act.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Appeal From Full Court of Supreme Court of Western Australia
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- ["definition of 'worker'" 'contract of Service Vs Contract for Services' "workers' Compensation in Timber Industry"]
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Full Court of Supreme Court of Western Australia
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the deceased was a 'worker' under the Workers' Compensation Act, 1912-1960 (WA)" 'Whether he was employed under a contract of service or a contract for services' "Whether the extended definition of 'worker' in s.5 of the Act applies"]
Ratio Decidendi
The contract in question required not only the deceased's labour but also the employment of other labour and provision of power equipment for the job, and payment was according to the combined activity, not simply for the deceased's manual labour. Therefore, the remuneration could not in law be regarded as 'in substance a return for manual labour bestowed by him'; the deceased was not a worker within the meaning of the Act.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed with costs']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment