’QUAKE VICTIMS

Hokitika Guardian, 22 July 1933, Page 8

’QUAKE VICTIMS

CASES BEFORE PIIIVY COUNCIL

CLAIM MJDB FOR COMPENSATION

Legal preliminaries in New Zealand, in connection with the .test, compensation :e ses arising .from . the Howk.es Bay earthquake on February 3, -.1931, wore announced from Wellington, as completed on Mar oh 30, when the -cases were formally * remitted to the Privy Council. Four cases were regarded as typical, namely, Margaret Brooketr v. Thomas 80-rthwick and Sons (Australasia), Limited ; John Ryan v. Thomas Bonhwick and Sons- (Australasia), Limited ; John Prende-rgast v. Nelson s (New Zeaifc-nd), Limited and Philomen.a. Mary Ash well v. Thomas James Brennan and Charles Fenton Manning. Mrs Bmaker's husband was killed while at work through the collapse of the building in which he was employed in Napier. Ry; n, a slaughterman, we is inured by the co-lapse of the same -building, and Prendergast was injured by a fall from the top of a sheeprace in the course of his employment. A'shwell was .a hotel employee killed by falling bricks while on his w y to post letters in the course of his employment.

A decision of far-reaching Importance jn determining claims for compensation following earthquake injury -is expected to result from the appeal to the Privy Council, i,u the interests of workers injured In the earthquake, as appellants, the other parties concerned . being insurance companies operating in New Zealand as - insurers of employers. The appeal brought 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 respect of employees who were- injured or killed in the eavthou-ake in February, 1931. Mr 11, P. Richmond, of t-ho firm of Buddie-, Richmond and Buddie, Auckland, retained by the underwriters, left by the ijkaroa for England on Mar -h 8. No other counsel was engaged from New Zealand, the appellants being represented -by English counsel.

GREAT IMPORTANCE OF QUESTION

/ Mr • Richmond vs-'-id prior to his departure that the appeal was from the Court of Appeal’s decision “that on the facts before .it-, injuries to workmen during the Napier earthquake did not give rise to a right. to,,compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act, 1322.' . ' ’ ' '■ “fn the ordinary way' the legislation eon ’<,l ir/iover have reached the ’Privy Council, as there is no appeal from the Arbitration Court, which normally deals with claims under the Workers’ Compensation Act.” 'Mr Richmond sard.. “Owing, however, to the great importance of the question involved, and to the, absence of hny decision in the 'Empire on claims arising from an earthonake disaster, a special course was taken. ‘‘With the consent of all parties,, and the approve! of the Arbitration ■Court, use was made of the Declaratory Judgments, Act to bring the matte-' directly before the Court of Appea.l,. so that, if thought fit, an appeal would be made to the Privy. Council. It was agreed that four edims, iselected lor test purposes, should he argued and all the other claims should stand over in the meantime. These four claims were brought directly before the. Court of Appeal i,n 1951 for decision ' on questions of law, the ’ facts having been agreed upon between the parties concerned. .

NO PRECEDENT FOR THE COURTS

“The question for the ' Court was Vhether the injury to each of the . workers arose ,‘by acoideut arising out of and in the course of the employment.’ It was admitted that the injuries arose by accident and ‘in the course of the employment.’ The question for the Court of Appeal was whether they arose ‘out of’ the employment. The majority of the . -Court held that on the frets before if none of the accidents arose ‘out of’ the employment, blit Mi’ Justice Reed held that one -claim was entitled to succeed. “An appeal is now being made to the Privy Council, and the resulting judgment 'will he of importance in other countries, as well as the Empire, where legislation exists similar to the Workers’ Compens t’on Act. The English Courts have decided cases involving linjury from such natural forces as lightning and gales, but have never had to consider a catastrophe -such as this, involving practically a- who’e community. The liability on employers and insurance companies, if they are responsible to compensate for injuries so caused, might, 'under certain circumstances, involve an enormous total.”