Jones v Wesfarmers Ltd

[2003] WASCA 225

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Workers' Compensation
2. › Principal contractor and sub-contractor deemed employers
3. › Whether principal deemed employer of sub-contractor's employee
4. › Whether work directly a part or process in trade or business of principal
5. › Whether disability occurred in respect of premises under principal's control or management
6. › Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 175
1. Workers' Compensation
2. › Constraints on awards of common law damages
3. › Redemption of workers' compensation claim
4. › Whether deemed employer relationship precludes common law damages
5. › Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), ss 93B, 93E(13)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Meaning of 'in respect of premises'
3. › Whether phrase requires causal connection between disability and premises or merely a material connection
4. › Whether chattel may constitute 'premises'
5. › Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 175(7)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Meaning of 'directly a part or process in the trade or business of the principal'
3. › Distinction between work forming component part of principal's operations and work merely ancillary or incidental thereto
4. › Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 175(3)

Quick Take

The phrase 'in respect of premises' in s 175(7) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA) requires a material connection between the disability and the premises, but does not require that an attribute of the premises themselves was a causative factor of the disability. A transport contractor that operates and maintains a fleet of vehicles, including by engaging specialist subcontractors for repairs, is carrying on a trade or business of which such maintenance is directly a part or process within s 175(3). Whether a vehicle or trailer can itself constitute 'premises' under s 175(7) remains an open question.