Malcolm v. Thomas Spowart & Co., Ltd [1913] ScotLR 823 (04 July 1913)

Malcolm v. Thomas Spowart & Co., Ltd [1913] ScotLR 823 (04 July 1913)

The Sheriff-Substitute was correct in refusing to consider the general increase of 9d. a day in miners' wages between the date of the agreement and the date of the application to review as per se entitling the claimant to an increase in compensation. The arbitrator must determine, as a matter of fact, what the workman would probably have been earning at the date of review if uninjured, and a general wage increase is only one factor in that assessment, not an automatic trigger for increased compensation.

Citation
[1913] ScotLR 823
Parties
Claimant and Appellant: Andrew Malcolm junior (by his father Andrew Malcolm); Respondents: Thomas Spowart & Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 July 1913
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Sheriff Court (application for Review of Compensation) / Court of Session Inner House, First Division – Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Calculation of Compensation, Effect of Wage Increases, Minor Workman, Review of Compensation
Labour Law Compensation Law Workmen's Compensation Calculation of Compensation Effect of Wage Increases Minor Workman Review of Compensation

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Malcolm junior (by his father Andrew Malcolm)

Claimant and Appellant

Thomas Spowart & Company, Limited

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Sheriff Court (application for Review of Compensation) / Court of Session Inner House, First Division – Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a general increase in miners' wages per se entitles a minor workman to an increase in compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, Schedule I, section 16.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator is bound to increase compensation solely due to a general rise in wages since the last agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The Sheriff-Substitute was correct in refusing to consider the general increase of 9d. a day in miners' wages between the date of the agreement and the date of the application to review as per se entitling the claimant to an increase in compensation. The arbitrator must determine, as a matter of fact, what the workman would probably have been earning at the date of review if uninjured, and a general wage increase is only one factor in that assessment, not an automatic trigger for increased compensation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Find that the Sheriff-Substitute was right in refusing to consider the general increase of 9d. a-day in miners' wages as per se entitling the claimant to an increase in compensation.
  • Dismiss the appeal and decern.