COMPENSATION CASE.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20494, 12 March 1932, Page 7

COMPENSATION CASE.

* JUDGMENT OP COURT. WKIT OF PROHIBITION SOUGHT. (press association tzlegsam.) WELLINGTON, March 11. The Court of Appeal heard a motion tor ;i writ, of prohibition brought against Mr Justice Frazer and Messrs Prime and Monteith, assessors of the Court of Arbitration, to restrain them from entering and enforcing a judgment in the action brought by Florence May Radcliffo, of Wellington, widow, against the Canadian Knight and Whippet Motor Co., Ltd., on the ground that in giving judgment in that action [he Court of Arbitration acted beyond its jurisdiction. Whilst engaged in the business of the company, Wilson Harold ltadclifie, I a motor salesman, was killed in a j motor accident. Subsequently his ( widow took proceedings against his employers. claiming compensation under the Workers Compensation Act. It was contended on behalf of the company that Radcliffe was not a worker within the meaning of the Act in that his salary amounted to more than £4OO per annum. The Court, however, ruled otherwise and awarded compensation at £IOOO and funeral expenses. Alternatively, the present plaintiff; the company, asks that proceedings should be moved into the Court of Appeal and that the judgment should be quashed. Submissions for Plaintiff. In opening the case for the plaintiff company, counsel submitted that the question as to whether or not a person was a worker within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act., 1922, was a question going to the root of the jurisdiction of the inferior Court and therefore reviewable by Court of Appeal 011 a writ of prohibition. The Court of Arbitration had given itself jurisdiction by a decision which was wrong in point of law that Court had allowed certain expenditure by Frazer and deducted it from his gross earnings, thereby reducing his salary to below £4OO. This expenditure was not supported by cvidoncc, and there was nothing before the Lower Court which entitled it to make a definite finding that a specific sum had been expended. The question whether this expenditure was properly deductible was a question of law affecting the jurisdiction of the Court, and if it had been wrongly decided, the Court of Appeal had power to set aside the judgment. Appeal Dismissed. At the - conclusion of the case for the plaintiff company, judgment was delivered dismissing the plaintiff company's motion, with costs. The Chief Justice, the Rt. Hon. Sir Michael Myers, said if the proceedings in the case were by way of appeal it would be open for the Court of Appeal to decide whether entertainment expenses were properly deducted by the Court of Arbitration in determining whether Frazer was a worker or not. The Workers' Compensation Act, 1922. however, expressly stated that no appeal would lie from a decision of the Court of Arbitration, except in cases where the Court acted Without jurisdiction. It was clearly within the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration to determine whether Frazer was a worker or not, and even if, in deciding the question, the Court came to an erroneous conclusion, the Court of Appeal has no power to quash it. Other members of the Bench agreed with the decision of the Chief Justice. - Thirty guineas costs were allowed to defendants.