Quinn v. M'Callum [1908] ScotLR 141 (21 November 1908)

Quinn v. M'Callum [1908] ScotLR 141 (21 November 1908)

The employer failed to discharge the burden of proof that the workman had recovered from the original injuries or that the supervening cardiac affection was unconnected with those injuries; therefore, compensation could not be lawfully ended.

Citation
[1908] ScotLR 141
Parties
Appellant: Charles Quinn; Respondent: J.B. M'Callum
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 November 1908
Procedural Posture
Appeal (stated Case) From Sheriff Court Arbitration / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; compensation not ended.
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Burden of Proof, Review of Weekly Payments, Causation of Incapacity
Employment Law Compensation Law Workmen's Compensation Burden of Proof Review of Weekly Payments Causation of Incapacity

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

Parties

Charles Quinn

Appellant

J.B. M'Callum

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (stated Case) From Sheriff Court Arbitration / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer discharged the burden of proof to show the workman had recovered from original injuries so as to end compensation payments under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906
  2. 2 Whether a supervening incapacity (cardiac affection) unconnected with the original injury justifies ending compensation

Ratio Decidendi

The employer failed to discharge the burden of proof that the workman had recovered from the original injuries or that the supervening cardiac affection was unconnected with those injuries; therefore, compensation could not be lawfully ended.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; compensation not ended.

Orders

  • The question of law answered in the negative; compensation payments to continue.
  • Respondent's application for review failed; respondent may reapply if new evidence arises.