Lothian Coal Company v Cassidy
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 30 November 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 10. |
| Date | 30 November 1937 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
1ST DIVISION. Sheriff of the Lothians and Peebles.
Workmen's CompensationAct 1925 (15 and 16 Geo. V, cap. 84), sec. 41Repayment of poor reliefCompensation being paid to workman prior to grant of reliefPayment suspended by employers pending dispute as to rate of weekly paymentOut-door relief granted to workman during suspension of compensationDispute regarding compensation settled by agreement to pay lump sum to workman in redemption of claimWhether poor law authority entitled to repayment of relief out of lump sumPoor.
The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, enacts, by sec. 41:"Where an authority has granted out-door relief to a person pending the settlement of his claim to compensation under this Act," and such relief would not have been granted if the person had then received or been in receipt of compensation, the authority may give notice to the person liable to pay the compensation, and the latter shall, on demand, repay to the authority the relief provided by it, up to the amount which he is "liable to pay as compensation."
A workman, who was injured by accident in August 1933, received weekly compensation at an agreed on rate until May 1934, when his employers gave notice to diminish the rate of payment. The workman refused to agree to the diminution, and payment of compensation was suspended pending the settlement of this dispute. In February 1936 the dispute was settled by the employers agreeing to make a lump sum payment of 200 in redemption of the workman's claim. This sum covered both arrears due to the workman and liability for the future, but no allocation was made between past and future liability. From May 1934 till February 1936, while payment of compensation was suspended, the workman received out-door relief. The relieving authority, in terms of sec. 41, claimed from the employers repayment of the relief paid, amounting to 125, out of the lump sum agreed to be paid to the workman.
The Court held (1) that the relief had been granted "pending the settlement" of the workman's claim, rejecting a contention for the workman that his claim was "settled" when liability to pay compensation was originally admitted by the employers; and (2) (diss. Lord Moncrieff) that the lump sum payment of 200 was chargeable with repayment of the sums paid as relief, in respect that it was a sum which the employers were "liable to pay as compensation."
The Lothian Coal Company, Limited, brought an action of multiplepoinding in the Sheriff Court at Edinburgh, calling as defenders Lasswade Joint Committee of the Midlothian County Council and Martin Cassidy, brusher, Lasswade. The fund in medio was the sum of 200, which was payable by the pursuers and real raisers in terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925.1
Claims were lodged by the Midlothian County Council, representing the Lasswade Joint Committee, and by Martin Cassidy.
The facts of the case, as set forth in the averments of the parties, were not in dispute, and were as follows:The claimant Martin Cassidy sustained injury by accident, while in the employment of the pursuers and real raisers, on 11th August 1933. Liability was admitted, and compensation was paid to Cassidy by his employers, from 11th August 1933 until 6th May 1934, at the rate of 1, 4s. 5d. per week. The employers gave notice to Cassidy on 26th April 1934 that they intended to reduce the compensation to 5s. 11d. per week. Cassidy refused to agree to the reduction, and, on 6th May 1934, the employers ceased payment of compensation pending the settlement of the dispute as to the amount to be paid. On 8th February 1936 the employers entered into an agreement with Cassidy under which they agreed to pay him 200 in redemption of his claim. There was no allocation of the 200 as between arrears of weekly payments then past due and any claim in respect of future incapacity. During the period from 6th May 1934 until 8th February 1936, while compensation was suspended, out-door relief was afforded to Cassidy by the Lasswade Joint Committee at weekly rates varying between 14s. and 34s. The total sums paid amounted to 154, 12s. 5d., but the County Council's claim on the fund in medio was restricted, in consequence of an error in calculation, to 125, 15s. 9d.
The employers, the pursuers and real raisers, having consigned the fundin medio, were discharged of any further liability in respect thereof.
The claimants the Midlothian County Council claimed to be ranked and preferred to the fund in medio to the extent of 125, 15s. 9d.
They pleaded:"These claimants, having paid out-door relief to the second-named defender pending the settlement of his claim to workmen's compensation, are now, upon a sound construction of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, entitled to be ranked and preferred to the fund in medio in respect of the sums disbursed by them, in terms of their claim."
The claimant Martin Cassidy claimed to be ranked and preferred "(a) To the whole fund in medio. (b)Alternatively, to the whole fund in medio under deduction of a sum equal to 5s. 11d. sterling weekly for the period commencing with the date of the first week's payment of relief by the said County Council to this claimant up to the date when his claim for compensation was settled, less any sum paid or payable to the pursuers and real raisers in name of expenses."
He pleaded:"(1) The fund in medio being compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, payable to this claimant, this claimant is entitled to be ranked and preferred to the whole fund in medio without deduction. (2) Alternatively, any reimbursement due to the said County Council being limited to the period [during] which out-door relief was being paid and this claimant's claim was in dependence, and being limited to a weekly sum of 5s. 11d. during that period, and the portion of the fund in medio payable to this claimant being workmen's compensation and not chargeable with expenses, this claimant should be ranked and preferred to the sum claimed in his alternative claim. (3) The claim for the County Council of the County of Midlothian, being irrelevant, should be repelled. (4) The claim for the County Council of the County of Midlothian, being incompetent, should be repelled."
On 19th July 1937 the Sheriff-substitute repelled the third and fourth pleas in law for the claimant Martin Cassidy; sustained the claim of the Midlothian County Council; sustained the claim of Martin Cassidy only to the balance of the fund in medio after payment of the claim of the County Council; and ranked and preferred the County Council to the fund in medio to the extent of 125, 15s. 9d., and Martin Cassidy to the remainder of the fund in medio.
The claimant Cassidy appealed to the Court of Session, and the case was heard before the First Division on 9th and 10th November 1937.
At advising on 30th November 1937,
LORD FLEMING.The appellant in this case was a workman in the employment of the Lothian Coal Company. On 11th August 1933 he sustained an injury by accident in the course of his employment. Liability to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, was admitted by his employers, and weekly payments at the rate of 1, 4s. 5d. as for total incapacity were made to him from 11th August 1933 to 6th May 1934. On or about 26th April 1934 the employers served a notice upon him, in terms of section 12 of the Act, of their intention to diminish the weekly payment to the sum of 5s. 11d. The workman did not send to his employers a report of a medical practitioner in terms of the section. He refused, however, to accept the weekly payment of 5s. 11d., maintaining on the contrary that it should be increased to 1, 7s. 6d. We have no precise information as to whether arbitration proceedings ensued, but for some unexplained reason there was protracted delay in bringing this dispute to an issue. It was finally settled on or about 8th February 1936, when, by agreement between the workman and his employers, the former's claim for compensation was commuted for a lump sum payment of 200. There are no materials in the case which would enable us to ascertain the basis on which this sum was fixed. I do not think, however, that it was ultimately disputed that the payment of this sum was for the redemption of the weekly payments to which the workman was entitled under the Act. The agreement was duly registered with the Sheriff-clerk in compliance with the provisions of section 25 of the statute. Section 13 recognises the right of employers and workmen to make agreements for the redemption of a weekly payment by a lump sum. Section 9 gives the workman compensation for total or partial incapacity in the form of weekly payments. But, if the weekly payment is redeemed for a lump sum under an agreement the validity of which is recognised by statute, it appears to me that the lump sum must also be compensation under the statute. Pending the settlement of the dispute, that is to say, during the period between 6th May 1934 and 8th February 1936, the workman received out-door relief from the County Council of Midlothian to the cumulo amount of 154, 12s. 5d. The County Council have restricted their claim to 125, 15s. 9d., but their counsel (while not desiring to increase the claim) explained that this was due to a mistake, and that their contentions, if well founded, would give them a right to recover the whole 154, 12s. 5d. This relief was afforded to the workman in weekly payments, which varied considerably in amount.
In this multiplepoinding (in which the fund in medio is the sum of 200) the County Council maintain that, under section 41 of the statute, they are preferentially entitled to receive payment of the beforementioned sum of 125, 15s. 9d. out of the 200, and that the workman is entitled to receive only the balance. The sections of the statute to which we were specially referred were sections 40 and 41. Section 40, omitting immaterial words...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v Glasgow Corporation
...2 K. B. 300. 4 Boswell v. Partridge Jones and John Paton, LimitedELR,[1941] 2 K. B. 300. 5 Lothian Coal Co. v. CassidySC, 1938 S. C. 138, Lord President Normand at pp. 158, 6 15 and 16 Geo. V, cap. 84. 7 [1941] 2 K. B. 300. 8 [1941] 2 K. B. 300. ...