Wilson v National Coal Board
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Diplock,Lord Keith of Kinkel,Lord Scarman,Lord Lowry,Lord Roskill |
| Judgment Date | 27 November 1980 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1980] UKHL J1127-2 |
| Docket Number | No. 2. |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 27 November 1980 |
[1980] UKHL J1127-2
House of Lords
Lord Diplock
Lord Keith of Kinkel
Lord Scarman
Lord Lowry
Lord Roskill
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend, Lord Keith of Kinkel. For the reasons he has given, I too would dismiss the appeal.
My Lords,
The appellant suffered personal injuries in an accident which occurred on 14th August 1973 in the course of his employment with the respondents at Littlemill Colliery, Ayrshire. He claimed reparation from the respondents and liability was admitted. The question in the appeal is concerned with the proper measure of damages.
As a result of his injuries the appellant, who was then 55 years of age, was totally incapacitated for work as a miner, or indeed for any other gainful employment. The respondents, however, did not at once dismiss him from their employment. They kept him on the work strength of Littlemill Colliery until that colliery was closed in July 1974. Other members of the work force were offered and accepted jobs at neighbouring collieries, but the appellant was made redundant on 13th July 1974. It was common ground that but for his incapacity the appellant would not have been made redundant but would have accepted work with the respondents at another colliery.
As a result of his dismissal by reason of redundancy, the appellant became entitled to, and was paid by the respondents, a lump sum of £1,120 under the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, and also further sums under the Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Schemes) Order 1973 amounting in total to £1,946. The issue in the appeal is whether these payments fall to be taken into account in the computation of the appropriate award to the appellant in respect of loss of earnings and earning capacity.
The Lord Ordinary (Lord Brand) assessed the element of damages in respect of loss of earnings on the basis that but for the accident the appellant would have continued to work for the respondents until he retired in the ordinary course at the age of 62. He held that part of the payments made under the 1973 Order was deductible, but that the remainder of these payments and the whole sum paid under the 1965 Act were not. It is now common ground between the parties that there is no sound basis for differentiation, and that all the payments fall to be treated alike. The respondents reclaimed, and the First Division (The Lord President, Lords Cameron and Avonside) held that the whole of the payments should be taken into account in computing damages. The appellant now appeals to this House.
It is unnecessary to examine in any detail the relevant provisions of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. It is sufficient to note that the appellant became qualified for a payment thereunder (and also under the Order of 1973) on the ground that his dismissal was attributable to the fact that the respondents had ceased to carry on business at Littlemill Colliery and so fell within the provisions of section 1(2)( a) of the 1965 Act. The conditions under which the other workers at Littlemill Colliery were offered and accepted employment at other collieries were such as to satisfy section 3(2) of the Act, with the result that they did not become qualified for any redundancy payments, notwithstanding that they had in fact been dismissed. This would have been the position in regard to the appellant, had it not been for the incapacity resulting from his injuries.
The nature of a redundancy payment is that it represents compensation for loss of an established job ( Hindle v. Percival Boats Ltd [1969] 1 W.L.R. 174, per Lord Denning M.R. at p. 176). The job must have been held for at least two years, and although the amount of the payment is related to length of service and to the level of past remuneration, it does not in any sense constitute compensation for loss of earnings. It is payable even though the dismissed employee at once finds work elsewhere at higher wages.
In Parry v. Cleaver [1970] A.C. 1 the House of Lords, by a majority, held that a disablement pension payable to a police officer who had been injured in a road accident should not be taken into account in assessing the damages...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wisely v John Fulton (Plumbers) Ltd; Wadey v Surrey County Council
...loss and expense which has been incurred in arriving at the measure of the claimant's damages: see Wilson v. National Coal Board, 1981 S.C. (H.L.) 9; Hodgson v. Trapp [1989] 1 A.C. 807, 822A–823D per Lord Bridge of 19In the application of this scheme in assessing damages only one half of th......
-
Ja Against Wa
...similar nature. [70] I was referred to R v National Insurance Commissioner ex p Stratton [1979] 1 QB 361 and Wilson v National Coal Board 1981 SC (HL) 9 regarding the nature of a redundancy payment. The payment is made because the employee is regarded as having an accrued right in his job, ......
-
Wood v British Coal Corporation
...for a loss which he has not sustained: …" 30 The appellants also relied on the decision of this House in Wilson v. National Coal Board 1981 S.L.T. 67 that a redundancy payment must in certain circumstances be brought into account against damages for tort. In that case an injured miner recei......
-
Cantwell v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
...are entirely consistent with the principle of Scots law that damages are intended to be compensatory. In Wilson v National Coal Board 1981 SC (HL) 9 the speeches in Parry v Cleaver were referred to as useful guides to the position in Scotland: per the Lord President (Emslie) at pp 14-15, Lo......