’QUAKE INQUIRY

Hokitika Guardian, 1 March 1933, Page 3

’QUAKE INQUIRY

'CIteVIMS FOR COMPENSATION

APPEAL TO. IM.UV Y CO U NCIL

AUCKLAND, February 27. ' A 'decision of far-reaching'"import-ance in determining claims for compensation following earthquake injury is expected to result from an appeal to the Privy Council, which is being made in the interests of workers"injured in the Napier earthquake, as: appellants, the other parties concerned being the insurance companies operating in New 'Zealand as insufei's of employers. The appeal will bring the New Zealand Workers Compensation Act before the Privy Council, for the first time, and will determine the liability of the companies to pay compensation in re- [ speet of employees who were injured or killed in the Napier earthquake in February, 1931. Mr H. P. Richmond, of the firm of Buddie, Richmond, and Buddie, Auckland, who lias, been retained by the underwritem, will lea.ve by the Aharon for England on March 8. No other counsel, has been, engaged from New Zealand., appellants being represented, by English counsel. Mr Richmond said that the appeal was from the Court of . Appeal’s de-

cisioa “that on, the facte before .it the injuries to workmen during the Napier earthquake did not give, rise to the night of compensation under the Workers Ooinpensation Act, 1922.” “In the ordinary way the legislation could never have reached the Privy Council, as there is no appeal from the Arbitration Court, .which normally

deals with claim:? under the Workers Compensation Act,” M-r Richmond said. “Owing, however, to the great importance- of the question involved, and to the .absence oif any decision, in the Empire on a claim arising from an earthquake disaster, a special courts© was taken. ",

With the consent of all parties, and the approval of the Arbitration Court, use was made of the Declaratory Judgments Act to bring the matter directly before the Court of Appeal,"so that if thought fit an appeal would he made to the Privy Council. It was agreeed tiiat four claims selected for •tes t- pur-, poses 'should be argued, and all other claims should stand over in the meantime. These four claims were brought directly before the Court of Appeal in 1931 for decision on questions of law, the facts having been agreed upon between the parties, concerned. Three, of the claims arose put of injuries received by' workers: in freezing works which pfirtially collapsed during the earthquake,-the Injuries in one case being fatal. The. fourth claim arose front the death of a hotel porter, who, when bit Ins way to the post office, was killed by the fall of part of a building in a Napier street. The question' ’for * 'idle' Quirt whether the injury to each of the workers a 5 ci.se- '‘by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.” It was admitted that the injuries ardsd by' accident, and “in the course of employment;”' The question for the Court of Appeal' was whether they arooe “out of” the employment. The majority of the Court 'held that on the facts before it none of the accidents arose “out of” the employment, hut Mr Justice Reed held that on© claim was tmtilled to _succeed. An appeal te now being made to the Privy Council,