George v. Macdonald [1901] ScotLR 39_136 (23 November 1901)

George v. Macdonald [1901] ScotLR 39_136 (23 November 1901)

A travelling threshing-mill and engine, when not geared for threshing and merely in transit, do not constitute a 'factory' under the statutory definition. The accident did not occur in or about a factory, so compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 is not available.

Citation
[1901] ScotLR 39_136
Parties
Appellant: Arthur George; Respondent: Alexander Macdonald
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 November 1901
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 / Inner House, First Division, Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; question answered in the negative.
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Definition of Factory, Industrial Accidents, Statutory Interpretation

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur George

Appellant

Alexander Macdonald

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 / Inner House, First Division, Court of Session

  1. 1 Whether a travelling threshing-mill and engine constitute a 'factory' under the Factory and Workshops Act 1878 as incorporated into the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897
  2. 2 Whether the accident occurred 'on, in, or about a factory' for the purposes of compensation

Ratio Decidendi

A travelling threshing-mill and engine, when not geared for threshing and merely in transit, do not constitute a 'factory' under the statutory definition. The accident did not occur in or about a factory, so compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 is not available.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; question answered in the negative.

Orders

  • Defender assoilzied from the conclusions of the action.