Keane v Mount Vernon Colliery Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Buckmaster,Lord Blanesburgh,Lord Warrington of Clyffe,Lord Russell of Killowen,. |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 1933 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1933] UKHL J0227-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Docket Number | No. 1. |
| Date | 27 February 1933 |
[1933] UKHL J0227-1
House of Lords
Lord Backmaster.
Lord Blanesburgh.
Lord Warrington of Clyffe.
Lord Russell of Killowen.
Lord Macmillan.
After hearing Counsel on Friday, the 25th day of November last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Thomas Keane, Annie Handley of Keane, Catherine Keane and Hannah Keane, Paupers, all residing at 17h, Kildonan Street, Coatbridge, praying, That the matter of the Interlocutor set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the Second Division, of the 9th of March, 1932, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Interlocutor might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioners 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 the Mount Vernon Colliery Company, Limited, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
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 Interlocutor, of the 9th day of March, 1932, 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.
My Lords,
On 6th December Michael Keane was fatally injured by an accident which admittedly arose out of and in the course of his employment in the Respondents' collieries. At the time of his death he was living with, and was the mainstay of his family, consisting of his father, his mother and his two sisters, who are the Appellants on this Appeal. They claim that they were partially dependent on his contributions "for the provision of the ordinary necessaries of life suitable for persons in his class and position," and are consequently entitled to compensation under Section IV, sub-sections 1 and 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925. This claim has been rejected by the Arbitrator and by the Second Division of the Court of Session, though Lord Morison dissented from the Judgment.
The facts are these. Michael Keane was a coal-cutter whose average net earnings were £3 2s. 4d. a week. His father, Thomas Keane, was receiving unemployment benefit at the rate of 17s. a week for himself and 9s. for his wife. His two sisters were in employment, receiving a net sum of 21s. 8d. and 19s. 3d. respectively weekly. All these moneys were handed over to the mother, Annie Keane, who paid the rent, the household expenses and provided herself and the other members of the family with clothes and pocket money. The total sum thus received and spent was £6 9s. 3d. and the sum on which the family must now live is £3 6s. 11d. No one can doubt the serious extent to which the family life has been impoverished by the death of the chief wage-earner, but it is not that test which the Act of Parliament has established—the standard it lays down is that the impoverishment must be such that the dependents have been deprived of the provision of the ordinary necessaries of life determined according to the words of the statute.
The determination of this question is for the Arbitrator, and unless he has applied a wrong standard or otherwise misinterpreted the law his decision must be final and cannot be set aside.
Now the Arbitrator has found:—
(a) That for a family of four or five adult persons in the class and position of the claimants a sum of 17s. weekly per person, making a total of £4 5s. 0d. for a family of five, is sufficient for the provision of ordinary necessaries of life, and in arriving at this conclusion he states:
"I took into consideration the evidence led in the present case, and also my own judicial knowledge of local conditions, and of the varying wages of miners employed in this district."
In order to get rid of the question that the Arbitrator has raised as to the admissibility of such knowledge, I may say that I think that, properly applied, and within reasonable limits, he was entitled to use it. To hold otherwise would involve that a number of witnesses would have to be called in order to bring under judicial notice by local proof facts within the common knowledge of everyone in the district. I see no objection to his having made his judicial experience in this respect available.
The real question in this ease is more difficult, and it is that expressed by Lord Morison. The deceased man was a member of a family all living together, and his position was as one of that family, and the real question is whether the sum of £6 9s. 3d. a week was more than enough for the provision of the ordinary necessaries of life in a family budget suitable for a person in his class and position ( Evans v. Welsh Navigation S.S. Co., 1927, A.C. 834), and I agree with Lord Morison when he says that the average wage in industry does not necessarily enter into the problem of ascertaining the standard life of a family. If, therefore, I were satisfied that the Arbitrator had disregarded this question of the standard of the family life I should have agreed with Lord Morison that the matter should be returned to him for further consideration. But although he has reduced the matter to an allocated sum per head, yet he shows that he has taken the total sum provided and measured the necessaries of a family in that position in considering that amount.
I do not think his finding that the daughters were not able to go to so many dances or picture-houses, or get so many clothes as formerly, involves the conclusion that reasonable amusement and good clothing were not necessaries for that position of life. Had he done so I should certainly have disagreed with his finding. I think the result he stated might have been better arrived at had he stated that the fact that the expenditure during the life of the deceased man was primâ facie evidence of the necessities of their position, within the meaning of the Statute, and then had found to what extent in his opinion the actual circumstances of the case modified this primâ facie presumption, but I cannot find in his award sufficient to enable me to say that his definite conclusion of fact is one which there is no evidence to support, or one which is reached by considerations not permitted by the law.
That other people might have reached another conclusion or that I myself might not have been of the same opinion is not sufficient to displace his finding.
This concludes the case with regard to the Appellants apart from Mrs. Keane. With regard to her claim, the offer by the Respondents of £175, has been reduced to £100, but I think the same consideration applies. The fact that £175 was offered to her is a matter the Arbitrator was bound to consider, and it is clear that he did do so, and though he gives no reason for this reduction, I cannot find he has no ground for his conclusion. The sum offered was very material evidence, but it was no admission that that was the amount due, and if he in his judgment thought it was too much unless there was something to invalidate his decision, it must be accepted.
In conclusion, I cannot refrain from making this further remark. This appeal has been made in forma pauperis, and Counsel for the Appellants has received no fee for his services, but had the Appellants been able to obtain by payment the help of the most skilful advocate, they could not have had their case better argued.
My Lords,
On the 6th December, 1030, Michael Keane, a coal-cutting machine-man in the service of the Respondents, sustained fatal injuries due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
The Appellants were the only members of his family within the meaning of these words in the Workmen's Compensation Acts. They claimed to be partially dependent upon his earnings at the time of his death. This Appeal arises on a case stated by an arbitrator in a reference in which that claim was made.
In the stated case the learned arbitrator records a finding that the Appellants other than Mrs. Keane (her dependency was matter of admission) were not to any extent dependent on the earnings of the deceased in the statutory sense, and he asks whether on the facts stated he was entitled so to find. The Second Division of the Court of Session, Lord Anderson and Lord Blackburn, Lord Morison dissenting, have returned an affirmative answer to the question. The Appeal seeks to have that answer displaced by one from your Lordships in the negative.
The finding in question was based upon another, set forth in paragraph 11 of the stated case, the terms of which are before the House and will be frequently referred to again. Is this finding one fit to be acted upon? It has been utilized by the learned arbitrator in purported obedience to Section 4 (2) of the Act of 1925. Is it in conformity with that subsection properly construed?
These are the main questions, and they involve considerations of wide importance. Before proceeding to consider them I would collect together some relevant facts.
At the time of the deceased's death the Appellants were living with him in family together. The family expenditure was regulated by a family purse. The practice of the deceased and his father and his sisters was, as stated in paragraph 8 of the case, to hand over to Mrs. Keane each week everything they received. She paid the rent, defrayed the household expenses and provided herself and the other members of the family with clothes and pocket money. Everything received by Mrs. Keane, was spent, the case finds "in this way."
The total amount received and so expended in every week was £6 6s. 3d., made up of 17s....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forrester's Curator v Ness & Company
...v. William Baird & Co.SC, 1931 S. C. 667, per Lord President Clyde at p. 673; Keane v. Mount Vernon Colliery Co.SCSC, 1932 S. C. 492, 1933 S. C. (H. L.) 1. The family purse amounted on an average to 3, 6s. 8d. per week, and it was not suggested that it was not all spent on necessaries. At t......
- Woden Valley Glass v Psaila
-
Wilhelm Lubbering v Bougainville Copper Limited [1977] PNGLR 183
...I would immediately be entitled and qualified to make an assessment of the reduction in earning capacity: Keane v Mt Vernon Colliery Co [1933] AC 309 at 337; Bryer v Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board (1939) 39 SR (NSW) 321 at 329. My own experience as counsel in Australia qual......
-
Moore v Harland & Wolff.; Creaney v Fairfield Ship-building and Engineering Company
...M.R., at p. 106. 8 Keenan v. Scottish Wholesale Co-operative Society,1914 S. C. 959. 9 Keane v. Mount Vernon Colliery Co.SCELR, 1933 S. C. (H. L.) 1, Lord Buckmaster at p. 6, [1933] A. C. 309, at p. 317.Docherty v. William Baird & Co.SC, 1935 S. C. 598; and M'Millan v. Western Chemical Co. ......