Tomas, Stjepan v Tomas, Anton & Anor [1983] FCA 353

CATCHWORDS

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION - contract for services - "work incidental to a trade or business regularly carried on by the contractor in

his own name."

s

Workmen's Compensation Ordinance 1951 (ACT) s.6(3)

STJEPAN TOMAS v ANTON TOMAS AND DUSKO PERAIC

ACT G.24 of 1983

Woodward, Gallop and Neaves JJ. Canberra 29 November 1983

a

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

)

)

)

) No. ACT G.24 of 1983 DISTRICT REGISTRY ) ) )

GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

STJEPAN TOMAS . Appellant and ANTON TOMAS AND DUSKO PERAIC Respondent ORDER

JUDGES MAKING ORDER : Woodward, Gallop and Neaves JJ. DATE OF ORDER : 29 xovember 1983

WHERE MADE >: Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed with costs.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

ee ee ee

GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

° THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

STJEPAN TOMAS

and

ANTON TOMAS AND DUSKO PERAIC

CORAM: Woodward, Gallop and Neaves JJ.

DATE: 29 November 1983

WOODWARD J. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

No. ACT G.24 of 1983

Appellant

Respondent

In this case the guestion for determination is whether

the appellant, at the time of his injury, was a workman within the

meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance 1951 of the

Australian Capital Territory.

v

It is first claimed, on his behalf, that he was working "under a contract of service ....- with an employer ...". The learned Stipendiary Magistrate, sitting as arbitrator under the

Ordinance, said on this issue

"... on what is before me I am not persuaded by the applicant that the applicant was an employee in the ordinary sense and there was no evidence upon which I would find that it was more probable than not that the relevant right to control was established before me."