Colfar v Coggins & Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeThe Lord Chancellor,Lord Thankerton,Lord Simonds
Judgment Date09 February 1945
Judgment citation (vLex)[1945] UKHL J0209-1
Date09 February 1945
CourtHouse of Lords
Colfar (Pauper)
and
Coggins and Griffith (Liverpool) Limited.

[1945] UKHL J0209-1

Lord Chancellor

Lord Thankerton

Lord Macmillan

Lord Porter

Lord Simonds

House of Lords

After hearing Counsel for the Appellant on Monday, the 4th day of December last, upon the Petition and Appeal of James Colfar, Pauper, of 32, Hook Street, in the City of Liverpool, in the County of Lancaster, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 1st of June 1943, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of Coggins & Griffith (Liverpool), Limited, lodged in answer to the said Appeal, and Counsel appearing for the Respondents, but not being called upon; and due consideration being had this day of what was offered for the said Appellant:

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 1st day of June 1943, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellant be allowed further time until the 9th day of March next, in which to make application to the County Court for compensation to be assessed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords,

1

This is an Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Scott, Luxmoore, and Goddard L.J.J.) affirming a judgment of Stable J. by which an action by a workman against his employers for damages for personal injuries was dismissed.

2

The Appellant is an experienced dock labourer who, on the 9th March, 1942, was one of a number of working stevedores employed by the Respondents in the process of lifting bags of salt from a barge and stowing them in No. 4 Hold of the S.S. "Empire Hope", which was lying in the Sandon Basin of Liverpool Docks. The bags, each of which weighed about one hundredweight, were being transferred from the barge, which was lying alongside the ship, by means of two derricks working on the ship in what is called "married gear". This method is commonly employed in such operations, and it is not disputed that it normally provides a safe and proper system of work. The method involves fixing one derrick-arm (in this case the starboard one) by means of a guy rope in an outward position so that it cannot swing inboard, and joining the falls of the starboard and port winches so that when a sling containing a load of bags has been raised vertically from the barge, by means of the starboard winch, to a sufficient height, it may, by using both winches together, be moved laterally to hang over the open hatchway and may then be let down till it reaches what is called the "stool" at the bottom of the hold. Thereupon the sling is opened and each man working in the hold takes a bag on his back and carries it to the proper position for stowage, until the "stool" is cleared ready to receive the next sling. The Appellant was one of those so working in the hold.

3

All went well until, just before the work was finished, the dock-authority notified that the barge would have to be moved from alongside to allow for the passage of an arriving ship into the dock. The Respondents' foreman requested the dock-authority to allow a further ten minutes in order to complete the unloading of the barge before moving it, and, upon this being granted, the remaining bags of salt, of which there were only five or six sling-loads left in the barge, were lifted in slings which, instead of being transferred directly into the ship's hold, were put down on the deck of the ship to save time, with a view to the lowering of them into the hold taking place later on. The emptied barge was then removed and, in order to make a clear passage for the incoming ship, the starboard derrick arm was brought inboard. This involved releasing the guy-rope, which however should have been again securely fastened...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Vickers v British Transport Docks Board and Dorman Long (Steel)Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • Invalid date
  • Aikbee Sawmill Ltd v Mun Kum Chow
    • Malaysia
    • Federal Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 2)
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • March 21, 2012
    ...Sieben Media AG v Carlton UK Television Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 605, 612–3 per Walker LJ; see also British Fame v MacGregor (The "MacGregor") [1945] AC 197 and Datec Electronics Holdings Ltd v United Parcels Service Ltd [2007] UKHL 23, [ [2007] 1 WLR 1325, para 46. 105 Context is all important. T......
  • Parkman Consulting Engineers v Cumbrian Industrials Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • October 30, 2001
    ...interfere with the trial judge's assessment in "exceptional" cases, as stated by the House of Lords in an Admiralty case The McGregor [1945] AC 197. He submits that the circumstances were exceptional here. In relation to water ingress through the cap, there were specific findings of defecti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • GROUND OF LAW IN A NOTICE OF APPEAL
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Sasegbon’s Judicial Dictionary of Nigerian Law. First edition Final Sections Volume 4
    • February 6, 2019
    ...matter of inference, even if it be inference of fact, a ground framed from such is a ground of law. Benmax v. Austin Motors Co. Ltd. (1945) 1 All E.R. 326 (d) Where a Tribunal states the law in a point wrongly, it commits an error in law. (e) Where the complaint is that there was no evidenc......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT