VENEER AND TIMBER PRODUCTS PTY LTD v YARNOLD AND ORS [1995] NSWCA 486

VENEER AND TIMBER PRODUCTS PTY LTD v YARNOLD AND ORS [1995] NSWCA 486

The trial judge did not commit legal error by referring to the 'control test'; the reasons, read fairly and in entirety, show consideration of the totality of indicia for employment, satisfying current legal requirements. No legal error arises requiring appellate intervention.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Veneer and Timber Products Pty Ltd; First Respondent (widow): Mary Yarnold; Second Respondent: Newee Creek Sawmill Pty Ltd; Contractor (third Respondent, Deceased): Robert Anderson; Third Respondent: WorkCover Authority of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 1995
Procedural Posture
Workers' Compensation Appeal / Appeal From Compensation Court, Limited to Point of Law
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Employment Relationship, Control Test, Employee Vs Independent Contractor, Notional Worker, Rural Work, Appeal Limited to Point of Law
Employment Workers' Compensation Employment Relationship Control Test Employee Vs Independent Contractor Notional Worker Rural Work Appeal Limited to Point of Law

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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Veneer and Timber Products Pty Ltd

Appellant

Mary Yarnold

First Respondent (widow)

Newee Creek Sawmill Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Robert Anderson

Contractor (third Respondent, Deceased)

WorkCover Authority of New South Wales

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Workers' Compensation Appeal / Appeal From Compensation Court, Limited to Point of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased was a 'worker' deemed employed by the principal under Workers Compensation legislation given rural timber felling context
  2. 2 Whether the Compensation Court judge committed legal error by relying on the 'control test' exclusively rather than considering the totality of employment indicia

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not commit legal error by referring to the 'control test'; the reasons, read fairly and in entirety, show consideration of the totality of indicia for employment, satisfying current legal requirements. No legal error arises requiring appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.