BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Rosie v. Mackay [1911] UKHL 48 (13 November 1911) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1911/49SLR0048.html Cite as: [1911] UKHL 48, 49 ScotLR 48 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 48↓
(Before the
(In the Court of Session, June 14, 1910, 47 S.L.R. 654, and 1910 S.C. 714.)
Subject_Master and Servant — Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. VII, cap. 58), sec. 16 (1), and Sched. II (17) ( b) — Appeal — Statute — Jurisdiction.
The Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, sec. 16 (1), enacts—“This Act shall come into operation on the first day of July 1907, but, except so far as it relates to references to medical referees and proceedings consequential thereon, shall not apply in any case where the accident happened before the commencement of this Act.” Schedule II (17) ( b) gives an appeal to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Session.
In an arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, arising out of an accident which occurred on 20th November 1906, the arbiter, with consent, remitted to a medical referee, and on his report, without further evidence, gave his decision reducing the compensation previously paid by a half. The employer appealed by stated case to the Court of Session, whose decision was that compensation should be ended.
Held that the House of Lords had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, as the words in the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, sec. 16 (1), “proceedings consequential” on references to medical referees, would not cover the case.
The case is reported ante ut supra.
Mackay, the workman, appealed to the House of Lords.
Page: 49↓
There was an arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 in respect of an accident which happened before the Act of 1906 came into operation. Under the old Act of 1897 there was no appeal to the House of Lords at all, and therefore, if it had not been for the particular interval of time during which this question has arisen, there could have been no pretence for saying that there was an appeal to this House—that has been decided. But then comes the Act of 1906. Now the effect of the Act of 1906 is that an appeal to this House is given in cases which come within that Act. But there is also something further in the Act of 1906. The Act of 1906 in effect provides that “so far as it relates to references to medical referees and proceedings consequential thereon,” the Act of 1906 is to apply at once, that is to say, immediately upon its passing, before the month of July 1907 at which the whole Act came into effect.
In this arbitration a point did arise in regard to a reference to a medical referee; it was referred to a medical referee who made his report, and that report was acted upon by the Sheriff; and it is now said that because there was a reference under the Act of 1906 in the case of an arbitration which arose under the Act of 1897, the effect is to draw to that arbitration the power of appeal to this House which did not exist in respect of the arbitration as it originally was commenced.
I cannot entertain the view that that is right. In my opinion accidents which happened before the Act of 1906 came into effect were governed and are governed by the Act of 1897 in regard to all their incidents excepting “so far as relates to references to medical referees, and to proceedings consequential thereon. “I cannot think that “proceedings consequential thereon”—proceedings following upon a reference—include a judgment of the Court of Session; and accordingly, in my opinion, the contention that the power of appeal is constructively attached to a pending arbitration, by virtue of those words in the statute of 1906, cannot be supported, and the jurisdiction of this House does not exist. Accordingly this appeal will have to be dismissed, and I move your Lordships accordingly.
Their Lordships dismissed the appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant— A. M. Anderson, K.C.— Robert Hendry. Agents— John S. Morton, W.S., Edinburgh— E. J. Marsh, London.
Counsel for the Respondents— Atkin, K.C.— Constable, K.C.— Jameson. Agents— Simpson & Marwick, W.S., Edinburgh— Smiles & Company, London.
