Selby Shoes (Aust) Pty Ltd v Erickson [1953] HCA 63

Selby Shoes (Aust) Pty Ltd v Erickson [1953] HCA 63

Where the interruption of a worker’s journey does not materially increase the risk of injury, it is not a 'substantial interruption' under s.7(1)(b) of the Workers' Compensation Act, even if substantial in fact, and therefore does not prevent entitlement to compensation; the construction of the section must follow the statutory language, regardless of conjectured legislative intent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Judgment After Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['journeys to and From Work' 'statutory Interpretation' 'compensation for Injury' 'workplace Injury' "interpretation of S.7(1)(b) and (c) Workers' Compensation Act 1926 1951 (nsw)"]
["workers' Compensation"] ['journeys to and From Work' 'statutory Interpretation' 'compensation for Injury' 'workplace Injury' "interpretation of S.7(1)(b) and (c) Workers' Compensation Act 1926 1951 (nsw)"]

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 / High Court Judgment After Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether an interruption to a journey home from work, not materially increasing the risk of injury, prevents a claim under s. 7 (1) (b) of the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1951 (NSW)" "How to construe 'substantial interruption' and 'any other break' in s. 7(1)(b) after the 1951 amendment"]

Ratio Decidendi

Where the interruption of a worker’s journey does not materially increase the risk of injury, it is not a 'substantial interruption' under s.7(1)(b) of the Workers' Compensation Act, even if substantial in fact, and therefore does not prevent entitlement to compensation; the construction of the section must follow the statutory language, regardless of conjectured legislative intent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' 'Order of the Supreme Court discharged.' 'In lieu thereof, order that the questions in the case stated be answered: (i) The Commissioner should have made an award for the respondent to the application, Selby Shoes (Australia) Pty. Ltd. (ii) This question does not arise. (iii) It is...