APPEAL COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 12 March 1932, Page 5

APPEAL COURT

JUDGMENT CONTESTED.

CLAIM FOR. COMPENSATION

(By Telegraph— Per Press Association)

WELLINGTON, March 11

The Court- of Appeal is hearing a motion for a writ of prohibition brought Mr Justice Fraser, and Messrs Prime and Monteith, assessors of the Court of- Arbitration, to restrain them from entering and enforcing judgment in the faction, brought, by Florence May Radcliffe of Wellington, widow, against the Canadian Knight and Whippet Motor Co., Ltd., on the ground that in giving judgment in that action, tlie Court, of Arbitration acted beyond its jurisdiction.

Whilst engaged in the business of the company, Wilson Harold Radcliffe, motor salesman, was killed in a 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 of £IOOO and funeral expenses.

Alternatively the present plaintiff company asks that the proceedings be moved into the Court of Appeal, and that judgment be granted. On the Bench are tlie Cnief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) and Justices Her damn, McGregor, Blair and S'mi h. In opening the case for tlie 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 jurisdiction of an inferior Court, and was therefore reviewab-e by the Court of Appeal, on a Writ of Prohibition.

The Court of Arbitration had given itself jurisdiction by the decision which was wrong in point of law. That court had allowed certain expenditure by deceased, and deducted it from Ids gross earnings, thereby reducing his salary to a sum of less than £4OO.

This expenditure was not supported by the evidence, 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 deducible, was a question of law affecting the jurisdiefion of I,lm Court and, if it bad been wrongly decided, thy Court of Appeal had power to set aside the judgment. At the conclusion of the ease for the paintin' Company, judgment was delivered dismissing the plaintiff Coy’s motion, with costs. Sir Michael Myers, CM., said the proceedings ill this ease were l>v way of appeal to decide whether entertainment expenses were properly deducted by till Court of Arbitration, in determining whether the deceased was a worker or not. The Workers’ Compensation Act, lijoo, however, expressly stated that no "ppoal woiul lie Iron) the decision of the Court of Aniuatioii, exeep’ in the casts where the Court mted without jurisdiction. It was Cearly within the jurisdiction of th Court of Arbitration to determine whether the deceased was a worker or not, and, even if in deciding the question, the Court came to in erroneous conclusion, the ( oiirl oV Appeal lias no power to quash it. Cther members of the Bench agreed with the decision of the Cliiel Justice. Thirty guineas costs were allowed to the defendants.