The Administration of The Workmen's Compensation Acts1
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1943.tb02874.x |
| Date | 01 April 1943 |
| Author | A. Russell Jones |
| Published date | 01 April 1943 |
NOTES
OF
CASES
I57
THE ADMINISTRATION
OF
THE
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
ACTS’
I
have read with some interest Mr. Hammond’s contribution to the
July issue of THE MODERN L.4w REVIEW.
Having regard to the proposals of the Reveridge Report,
I
hope that
many
of
the matters to which he refers
will
shortly become of historical
interest only, but as one who was largely responsible for the drafting
of
the Labour Party Rill on Workmen’s Compensation to which he refers,
I
am mildly surprised that
a
gentleman who writes as an authority on
workmen’s compensation law, should state that he has been
‘I
unable
to
read anything” about the New Zealand and Canadian schemes.
If
he
wants to study them, he should have no difficulty in getting copies of the
schemes and also of the Annual Reports of the Commissioners.
For the reason stated above,
I
refrain from detailed comment on
Mr. Hammond’s contribution, but
as
a
practitioner on the workmen’s
side with many years’ experience
of
the administration
of
workmen’s
compensation law,
I
wish
I
could accept
his
Panglossian view of the world
of
workmen’s compensation.
Unfortunately
I
have seen too many of the human tragedies involved
-many
of
them the result of the system-to adopt such
a
detached view.
It
is
my considered opinion that even “an average profit ratio of
2)
per
cent
”
is
too much to pay for the doubtful benefit
of
commercial insurance
in
the administration of workmen’s compensation.
I
welcome whole-
heartedly the Beveridge proposals
as
the end
of
a
scheme
of
things which
made it possible for profits (however small), and whether insurance, legal
or medical, to be made out
of
the “blood and sweat
”
of the workers.
A.
RUSSELL
JONES.
NOTES
OF
CASES
Formation
of
Contract-Lack
of
Animus
Contrahendi
Upton-on-Severn
R.D.C.
v.
Powell,
[I9421
I
All E.R.
220,
is
a
case
for a students’ moot, and
if
the students were to sit
as
the “House of
Lords
”
one feels that the decision of the
Court
of Appeal would stand
a
good chance of being “reversed.” The defendant’s farm was in the
Upten police district, but in the Pershore, and not the Upton, fire district.
Thus he
was
entitled to the services of the Pershore fire brigade without
charge, but not tq those of the Upton fire brigade.
A
fire broke out
on
his farm, and the defendant telephoned to the police inspector
at
Upton
and asked for the fire brigade to be sent. The inspector naturally sum-
moned the local Upton fire brigade. Apparently he and the defendant
and the Upton brigade thought that the farm was in the Upton fire district.
The Upton brigade arrived and put out the fire. The Upton R.D.C. now
sued on
an
implied contract for remuneration.
It
was held by the Court
of Appeal, affirming the county court judge, that
it
was entitled to recover.
We have received
this
note from a reader Commenting
on
the
subject
of
Mr.
L
E.
Hammond’s article in our issue
of
July,
rg4z-E~.
To continue reading
Request your trial