Fallens v. William Dixon, Ltd [1923] ScotLR 8 (01 March 1923)

A general reduction in wages in the post-injury employment constitutes a material change of circumstances entitling the injured worker to seek review of compensation, provided the comparison is made with what he would have earned as a miner but for the accident.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [1923] ScotLR 8
Parties: Appellant: Edward Fallens; Respondent: William Dixon, Limited
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 01 March 1923
Procedural Posture: Appeal From Arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 / Judgment on Appeal, Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome: Appeal allowed; question of law answered in the affirmative; case remitted to arbitrator for reassessment of compensation.
Legal Topics: Workmen's Compensation, Review of Compensation, Partial Incapacity, Change of Circumstances, Fall in Wages

Employment Law Compensation Law Workmen's Compensation Review of Compensation Partial Incapacity Change of Circumstances Fall in Wages

Source-derived case record

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5

Parties

Edward Fallens

Appellant

William Dixon, Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 / Judgment on Appeal, Inner House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

1 Whether a general reduction in wages in the employment obtained post-injury constitutes a change of circumstances entitling review of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906
2 Whether the comparison for compensation should be between post-injury earnings and pre-injury earnings as a miner

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; question of law answered in the affirmative; case remitted to arbitrator for reassessment of compensation.

Orders

Remit case to arbitrator to assess compensation considering the change in circumstances and comparison with miner's earnings.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.