Parvin v Morton Machine Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Normand,Lord Reid,Lord Tucker,Lord Asquith of Bishopstone,Lord Cohen |
| Judgment Date | 06 March 1952 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1952] UKHL J0306-2 |
| Date | 06 March 1952 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1952] UKHL J0306-2
House of Lords
Lord Normand
Lord Reid
Lord Tucker
Lord Asquith of Bishopstone
Lord Cohen
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Parvin against Morton Machine Company Limited, that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Tuesday the 15th, as on Wednesday the 16th, days of January last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Thomas Parvin, 3 The Neuk, Craigneuk, Wishaw, Lanarkshire, with consent and concurrence of Thomas Parvin, 3 The Neuk aforesaid, his father, as his curator and administrator-in-law, praying, That the matter of the Interlocutors set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary in Scotland (Lord Strachan) of the 5th of January 1950, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, and also an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session there of the Second Division of the 23d of June 1950, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Interlocutors, so far as aforesaid, 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 The Morton Machine 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 Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Interlocutors of the 5th day of January 1950 and of the 23d day of June 1950, in part complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same are 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 do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondents the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments: And it is also further Ordered, That unless the Costs, certified as aforesaid, shall be paid to the parties entitled to the same within one calendar month from the date of the certificate thereof, the Cause shall be, and the same is hereby, remitted back to the Court of Session in Scotland, or to the Judge acting as Vacation Judge, to issue such Summary Process or Diligence for the recovery of such Costs as shall be lawful and necessary.
My Lords,
The appeal submits for decision a novel question on the construction of the Factories Act, 1937. It is whether the provisions of sections 14 (1), 16 and 20 of the Factories Act, 1937, apply to machines or machinery manufactured in the factory or only to machines or machinery for use in the factory in the processes of manufacture or as ancillaries to these processes. There is no reported case in which this question has been decided. The same question might have arisen under the earlier Act of 1901, and, though it is not necessary to decide the point, I see no reason to differ from the opinion of Lord Patrick, that there is no difference material to this question between the language of the 1901 Act and the language of the 1937 Act.
The facts as averred are simple. The Appellant, a minor employed by the Respondents as an apprentice fitter, was instructed by one of the journeymen fitters to clean a dough-brake which had been manufactured and assembled in the Respondents' factory. The dough-brake consists of a flat table 6 feet long and 22 inches wide divided into two equal parts by a pair of rollers each of them 22 inches wide. One roller is placed with its upper surface flush with the table surface, and the other is mounted directly above it at a height which can be adjusted according to the required thickness of the dough which is passed between the rollers while they are revolving. The rollers are driven at a speed of 40 revolutions a minute by an electric motor built in under the table. A guard is provided which is so designed that it can come down on the side of the rollers where the nip-in may happen to be according to the direction of the rotation of the rollers. Before the Appellant began to clean the dough-brake the fitter had removed the guard in order to adjust it and had set the brake in motion. While the Appellant was working, a rag held by him was drawn between the rollers and after it his hand and forearm. He sues both on negligence at common law and on breach of the duties imposed by sections 14 (1), 16 and 20 of the Act. His averments of negligence were held to be relevant by the Lord Ordinary and issues have been approved. The Respondents did not reclaim against that part of the Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor. On the other hand, the Lord Ordinary held the averments of breach of statutory duty irrelevant, and he therefore repelled the Appellant's plea-in-law directed to them and sustained quoad them the Respondents' plea to relevance. The Appellant reclaimed against this part of the Interlocutor and the Second Division of the Court of Session unanimously refused the Reclaiming Motion and adhered.
My Lords, I agree with the learned judges in the Courts below that sections 14, 16 and 20 of the Factories Act, 1937 do not apply to machines within the factory which are the products of the manufacturing processes carried on in the factory.
Section 14 (1) provides that "Every dangerous part of any machinery, other than prime movers and transmission machinery, shall be securely fenced unless it is in such a position or of such construction as to be as safe to every person employed or working on the premises as it would be if securely fenced: Provided that, in so far as the safety of a dangerous part of any machinery cannot by reason of the nature of the operation be secured by means of a fixed guard, the requirements of this subsection shall be deemed to have been complied with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haigh v Charles W Ireland Ltd
...Parvin v. Morton Machine Co.SCSC, 1950 S.C. 371, Lord Justice-Clerk Thomson at p. 378, Lord Jamieson at p. 380, Lord Patrick at p. 381; 1952 S.C. (H.L.) 9, Lord Asquith of Bishopstone at pp. 15–16. Reference was also made to Thomson v. City Glass Bottle Co.ELR, [1902] 1 K.B. 233, Collins M.......
-
Irwin v White, Tomkins & Courage Ltd
...part was in motion when this accident occurred. 9 Finally the Respondents relied on the case of Parvin v. Morton Machine Co., Ltd. [1952] A.C. 515. There it was held that the fencing provisions of the Act do not apply to machinery which is being manufactured in a factory and which is not pa......
-
Liptrot v British Railways Board
...for excluding certain kinds of machinery from the scope of section 14, then they must be excluded. In Parvin v. Morton Machine Co. [1952] A.C. 515 it was held that the section does not apply to machinery which is in the course of being manufactured in the factory. Lord Normand said: "But th......
-
Cherry v International Alloys Ltd
...their widest sense the words "any machinery" would include machinery that has been manufactured in the factory. However in Parvin's case ( 1952 A.C.515) they were given a more restricted meaning which included only such machinery as is employed "in the processes of manufacture or as ancilla......
-
THE WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT: AN OVERVIEW
...an ambiguity in the UK Health and Safety at Work etc Act in R v British Steel PLC[1995] 1 WLR 1356. 69 Parvin v Molton Machine Co [1952] AC 515. Though it is not clear, it would appear that this could also be the position under reg 12 of the Workplace Safety and Health (General Provisions) ......