Wilsons and Clyde Coal Company v McFerrin; Kerr v James Dunlop & Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 March 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 6. |
| Date | 15 March 1926 |
| Court | House of Lords |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
28 cases
-
Thomas v Ocean Coal Company Ltd
...has, however, been rejected by this House in the case of Garallan Co. v. Anderson, 1927, A.C. 59, and even more expressly in Wilson's Clyde Coal Co. v. McFerrin, 1926, A.C. p. 377, where Lord Dunedin clearly stated at p. 385 that such an interpretation was obviously untenable, and that th......
-
McDonnell v Sevitt
...deemed to arise out of and in the course of the employment. Dictum of Lord Dunedin in Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co., Ltd. v. McFerrin,ELR [1926] A. C. 377, at p. 386 (approved in Thomas v. Ocean Coal Co., Ltd.,ELR[1933] (A. C. 100), applied. S. C., I.F.S. McDonnell and Sevitt Unauthorised use ......
-
Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd (Cape Providence)
...Clarke's case (20) BWCC 309 – notwithstanding that this was in conflict with an earlier decision of the House of Lords – McFerrin's case [1926] AC 377. Lord Wright made the following comment on this situation at p.598: "I can understand the difficulty in which both the county court judge an......
-
Noble v Southern Railway Company
...trade or business. In saying this I am only repeating in my own words what Lord Dunedin stated in M'Aulay v. James Dunlop & Co. (1926, A.C. 377, at pp. 386, 7). The sub-section has, I think, no application unless the workman when the accident happened was acting in contravention "of any sta......
Request a trial to view additional results