Selby Shoes (Australia) Pty Ltd v Erickson [1953] HCA 63

26 HIGH COURT {1953.

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

TARY LIMITED

SELBY SHOES (AUSTRALIA) PROPRIE- APPELLANT ;

ERICKSON : ; 'i é , zi i RESPONDENT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

H. CG. or A. Workers' Compensation—Periodic journey—Interruption—Substantial—N ot reason-

1953. ably incidental to journey—Injury—Risk—Material increase—Award— denen Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1951 (N.S.W.) (No. 15 of 1926— No. 25 of SypNey, 1951), s. 7 (1) (b).* Aug. 18 ; = If a break in a journey of the description covered by the provisions of MELBOURNE, s. 7 (1) (b) and (ce) of the Workers' Compensation Act 1926-1951 (N.S.W.) Ode Mo is deemed by the Workers' Compensation Commission not to have been Dien, Cit reasonably incidental to such journey the worker is not entitled under those Fullagar, Kitto, provisions to compensation notwithstanding that "in the circumstances of TD, the particular case the nature, extent, degree and content of the risk of

injury were not materially changed or increased by reason only of such interruption " and that the interruption for that reason is not to be deemed a substantial interruption within sub-par. (i) of par. (b) of s. 7 (1).

A worker interrupted a daily or periodic journey to his place of abode from his place of employment by a visit of an hour's duration to a hotel. He then resumed his journey part of which he made by train. In alighting from the train he suffered injury. The Commission found that the interruption of the journey occasioned by the call at the hotel was a substantial interruption in fact but that it was not an interruption by reason whereof (within the meaning of the second of the two paragraphs of s. 7 (1) (b)) the nature, extent, degree and content of the risk were materially increased. It was therefore not to be deemed a substantial interruption within sub-par. (i) of s. 7 (1) (b)-