Case name & citation: Zuijs v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd [1955] HCA 73; (1955) 93 CLR 561
- Court: High Court of Australia
- Date: 15 December 1955
- The bench of judges: Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Williams, Webb and Taylor JJ
- Appellant: Constantin Zuijs
- Respondent: Wirth Bros. Pty. Ltd. (circus proprietors)
What is the case about?
In Zuijs v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd, the key issue revolves around whether the appellant, an acrobat performing at a circus, should be considered a “worker” under the Workers’ Compensation Act 1926-1948 (N.S.W.). The appellant sought compensation after sustaining injuries during a performance and argued that he was either employed under a contract of service or that he should benefit from Section 6(3A) of the Act.
Section 6(3A) establishes a deemed employment relationship under certain conditions, such as when a contractor does not operate an independent trade or business and performs work exceeding five pounds in value.
Initial decision in Zuijs v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd
The Workers’ Compensation Commission ruled that Zuijs was not employed under a contract of service, nor did he fall within the purview of Section 6(3A), denying him compensation.
This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which upheld the Commission’s findings. Further, the case was escalated to the High Court of Australia.
Judgment of the High Court
The High Court found that the appellant was working under a contract of service, meaning he was an employee of the circus.
The decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was overturned, and the matter was remitted for further consideration in line with the High Court’s interpretation.
Reasoning (Zuijs v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd)
Even though the acrobatics themselves require a high degree of individual skill and personal performance, the circus, as the employer, had control over other aspects of the job. These included decisions about the schedule of performances, rehearsals, safety measures, costumes, and conduct. The employer’s ability to control these ancillary aspects suggests a relationship of employment, rather than independent contracting.
Regarding the applicability of Section 6(3A), it was found that the provision requires a contract involving work worth more than five pounds. However, it is clear that the trapeze artist’s role, being part of a touring circus, involves repeated acts for a weekly wage, not a one-off task or a contract based on specific, measurable work. Therefore, the provision that requires a contract for a particular task with a defined value does not apply here.
In this regard, the judges stated as under:
“In our opinion this provision is entirely inappropriate to the kind of contract in question in this case. That is shown by the opening words, “Where a contract to perform any work exceeding five pounds in value”. You cannot satisfy this condition by a contract of indefinite duration for repeated performances of an act on a trapeze.”
Significance
This case highlights the importance of interpreting the nature of employment contracts carefully, especially in situations involving specialized work like that of an acrobat.
References:
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM LABOUR LAW: