COMPENSATION CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 6 September 1932, Page 6

COMPENSATION CASE

MINER’S CLAIM

BASIS OF ASSESSMENT

DETERMINED

CHRISTCHURCH', September 6

Hid Honour, Mr Justic Frazer has given reserved judgment in favour of plaintiff in a case concerning the bawls of assessment of miners’ compensation claims. Plaintiff was Alexander Shewati, a . ’trucker, of Stockton, Westport, hud defendants were*‘the Westport-Stock ton Coal’ Company, Ltd. ‘ The case heard at a sitting of tlie in Christchurch oil July 25*. In the judgment, liis Honour’ said:—

'“This is a claim for compensation in respect of an, injury by accident suffered by plaintiff at his work. It is adriiitted that the accident arose out of and in the course of bis employment with defendant company, andj that he was incapacitated for one week. The only question is as to the basis on which his average weekly earnings are to be calculated. The amount involved is trifling,' but an important question of principle is involved.

“Plaintiff claims that bis average weekly earnings should be computed on the basis of'a’ normal or standard working week of five full days. Defendant company contends that, owing to the consistently irregular nature of the operations of the miiie during the twelve months preceding the accident, 'the .basis of computation should be that set out in Awa v. Taupiri Coal Minets, Ltd. .. “In the opinion of, the Court, the correct method of computing the average weekly, earnings of plaintiff is to add the, day bn which, for, personal reasons, he Aid not work, to the ii .rober of days worked by him,, and to del to this number (127) the 181 days lost by' the mine through' holidays, etc., making a total of 145-4 days; then to multiply the daily earnings' by 1454; and finally to divide the product by the number of weeks (39) in which work was available. The calculation is .worked out .thus.* Daily earnings, ’ £l*' 2s ; .multiply by 1454, £l6O- Is; divide by 381. £4s 2s id.' . ■ ; “This average of £4 2s Id per week Is greater than that which defendant company put - forvvard, 'though less Ilian that claimed by plaintiff. If plaintiff had. been a pi|ece-workei\ the calculation would 1 have been based on the average of his daily earnings, which would rieoeWarily vary from clay to day, and his average weekly earnings would liava been arrived at by the same method as that set out above,' that " is, tl% dAilliy average would have been 'multiplied by 145-| and the result divided by 39.

“The Court realises' the ‘ difficulty f applying the language of Section 6 (1) to all the multifarious ' conditions' bf employment' that it' is’ intend I '- d to meet; and, in view of the frequency with"' which caistes ptaseniting features" similar to' those of tke' present case are now being dealt kith', it is desirious, when an oppoftuhity of stating a cake l for the ’opinion' of the Court of Appeal.' The •imount involved in, the present case *' s trifling, and,' probably for that reason, the parties did not request Ih’s Court to state a case.

“Judgment will be for plaintiff for q2 14s 9d, less £2 6‘s 8d already pri’d, together with £7 7s costs.”