Cooper & Greig v. Adam [1905] ScotLR 42_562_1 (30 May 1905)

Cooper & Greig v. Adam [1905] ScotLR 42_562_1 (30 May 1905)

The defenders were not liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 because the accident did not occur in a factory belonging to the defenders, nor was the work 'engineering work' as defined by the Act, since no mechanical power was used in the operation at the time of the accident.

Citation
[1905] ScotLR 42_562_1
Parties
Defenders and Appellants: Cooper & Greig; Pursuer and Respondent: John Adam
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 May 1905
Procedural Posture
Workmen's Compensation Claim / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session, Inner House, First Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; compensation award set aside.
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Definition of Factory and Engineering Work, Employer Liability, Interpretation of Workmen's Compensation Act 1897
Employment Law Personal Injury Statutory Interpretation Workmen's Compensation Definition of Factory and Engineering Work Employer Liability Interpretation of Workmen's Compensation Act 1897

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cooper & Greig

Defenders and Appellants

John Adam

Pursuer and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Workmen's Compensation Claim / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session, Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accident occurred in a 'factory' within the meaning of section 7(1)(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897
  2. 2 Whether the defenders were 'undertakers' of that factory within the meaning of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the work at which the respondent was injured was 'engineering work' within the meaning of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders were not liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 because the accident did not occur in a factory belonging to the defenders, nor was the work 'engineering work' as defined by the Act, since no mechanical power was used in the operation at the time of the accident.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; compensation award set aside.

Orders

  • First question of law answered in the affirmative: the Sheriff-Substitute was wrong in law in holding the pursuer entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897.
  • No liability for compensation under the Act.