BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> M'kenna v. The united collieries, Ltd [1906] ScotLR 43_713 (27 June 1906) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1906/43SLR0713.html Cite as: [1906] ScotLR 43_713, [1906] SLR 43_713 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 713↓
A workman brought an action at common law and under the Employers' Liability Act, but containing no reference to the Workmen's Compensation
Page: 714↓
Act 1897, to recover damages from his employers for injuries sustained when in their employment. A jury returned a verdict for the defenders, whereupon the pursuer moved the Court to assess compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897. The motion was postponed, and renewed w'hen the case was in the roll . to apply the verdict. The defenders admitting liability, the Court applied the verdict, found the defenders entitled to expenses, and of consent found them liable in compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but there being no evidence on which to assess the compensation, allowed a proof as to the amount. Thereafter parties having agreed as to the amount of compensation due, the defenders moved, under sec. 1 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, to deduct from this their taxed expenses down to the date when the verdict was applied. The pursuer opposed this, and moved for his expenses since that date. Held that the defenders were entitled to deduct from the award of compensation their expenses as taxed down to the date when the verdict was applied, and thereafter that no expenses were due to or by either party.
The Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 (60 and 61 Vict. cap. 37), section 1, (4), enacts—“If, within the time hereinafter in this Act limited for taking proceedings, an action is brought to recover damages independently of this Act for injury caused by any accident, and it is determined in such action that the injury is one for which the employer is not liable in such action, but that he would have been liable to pay compensation under the provisions of this Act, the action shall be dismissed; but the Court in which the action is tried shall, if the plaintiff shall so choose, proceed to assess such compensation, and shall be at liberty to deduct from such compensation all the costs which, in its judgment, have been caused by the plaintiff bringing the action instead of proceeding under this Act. …”
James M'Kenna, a bogieinan, brought an action in the Sheriff Court of Lanarkshire at Hamilton against the United Collieries, Limited, his employers, to recover damages at common law or under the Employers' Liability Act 1880 for injuries sustained by him while in their employment. No reference was made in the record to any claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897. The case was appealed for trial by jury, issues were allowed, and the case having been tried, a verdict was returned for the defenders. Thereupon the pursuer moved the Court under sec. 1 (4) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 to assess compensation under that Act. The motion was postponed, and when the defenders enrolled the case to apply the verdict the pursuer again made the motion. The defenders while admitting liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act maintained that no evidence had been led to enable the Court to assess the amount of compensation. The Court, holding that this was so, applied the verdict, dismissed the action, found the defenders entitled to expenses; further, of consent found that the injury to the pursuer was one for which the defenders were liable to pay compensation to the pursuer under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and allowed the pursuer a proof as to the amount of compensation. The defenders lodged an account of their expenses down to the date when the verdict was applied, and these were taxed at £187, 12s. lid., for which sum decree in their favour was pronounced. Thereafter parties having agreed that the amount of compensation due was 12s. per week lodged minutes to that effect, and the case having been enrolled to give effect to this agreement, the defenders moved under sec. 1 (4) of the Workmen's Compensation Act to be allowed to deduct from the award of compensation their whole taxed expenses down to the date when the verdict was applied. The pursuer opposed and also moved for his own expenses since the date when the verdict was applied.
Argued for the defenders—None of the expenses of the jury trial were incurred in respect of any claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, of which no mention was made on record. There had been no question fought which could only arise under that Act. The deduction should therefore be allowed— Cattermole v. Atlantic Transport Company, Limited, [1902] 1 KB 204.
Argued for the pursuer—The defenders should have admitted liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act before the expense of the trial had been incurred. The effect of deducting the taxed expenses of the defenders from the compensation would practically nullify the award of compensation. The words of sec. 1 (4) of the Act were permissive, and the Court should not at any rate deduct the whole of defenders' expenses— Hoddinott v. Newton Chambers & Company, Limited,[1901] A.C. 49, at 74; and Cattermole (sup. cit.) In any event pursuer should get expenses since the verdict was applied.
As to the expenses incurred since the trial, this is a novel question, and the discussion which has taken place has been necessary in order that the point might be cleared up. On the other hand the pursuer did not lead any evidence at the trial in support of his claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act as he might have done. I think the proper course will be to deduct from the award of compensation the expenses to which the defenders have been found entitled down to the date when the verdict was applied, and to allow no expenses to either party since that date.
It would be intolerable if the defenders had both to bear the expenses of successfully defending an action, and also had to pay large sums in compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It seems to me that is just the kind of case which the provisions of section 1, sub-section 4, of the Act were designed to meet. I entirely agree with your Lordships.
The Court pronounced this interlocutor:—“… Decern against the defenders for payment to the pursuer of compensation at the rate of twelve shillings per week from 31st December 1904, in terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, under deduction of the sum of One hundred and eighty-seven pounds twelve shillings and eleven pence decerned for by interlocutor of 20th March 1906: Quoad ultra And no expenses due to or by either party.”
Counsel for Pursuer— M'Clure, K.C.— A. Moncrieff. Agents— Simpson & Marwick, W.S.
Counsel for Defenders— G. Watt, K.C.—Horne. Agents— W. & J. Burness, W.S.
