Campbell v. Fife Coal Co., Ltd [1902] ScotLR 40_143 (02 December 1902)

The calculation of average weekly earnings for compensation under the Act must use trade weeks as the divisor, following the precedent set in Fleming v. Lochgelly Iron and Coal Company.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [1902] ScotLR 40_143
Parties: Claimant/respondent: Maggie Black or Campbell, widow of Andrew Campbell, miner, Kelty, as an individual and as tutor and administrator-in-law for her pupil child John Campbell; Appellant: Fife Coal Company, Limited
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 02 December 1902
Procedural Posture: Appeal From Arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 / Court of Session Inner House Second Division
Outcome: appeal dismissed; award affirmed
Legal Topics: Workmen's Compensation, Calculation of Average Weekly Earnings, Statutory Interpretation

Employment Law Compensation Law Workmen's Compensation Calculation of Average Weekly Earnings Statutory Interpretation

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Maggie Black or Campbell, widow of Andrew Campbell, miner, Kelty, as an individual and as tutor and administrator-in-law for her pupil child John Campbell

Claimant/respondent

Fife Coal Company, Limited

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 / Court of Session Inner House Second Division

Legal Issues

1 Whether average weekly earnings under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 should be calculated using trade weeks or calendar weeks

Ratio Decidendi

The calculation of average weekly earnings for compensation under the Act must use trade weeks as the divisor, following the precedent set in Fleming v. Lochgelly Iron and Coal Company.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; award affirmed

Orders

Second question of law answered in the affirmative
Appeal dismissed

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.