Hayden v. Dick [1902] ScotLR 40_95 (26 November 1902)
The deceased was not a workman in the sense of the Act but an independent contractor, as the contract was for a specific piece of work, with no obligation to work personally, no control by the employer, and no arrangement for dismissal or notice as in employment.
- Citation
- [1902] ScotLR 40_95
- Parties
- Claimant and Respondent: Euphemia Pryde or Hayden, widow of Michael Hayden; Appellant: George Dick, builder and quarrymaster
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 26 November 1902
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Sheriff Court Arbitration / Inner House Second Division Judgment
- Outcome
- compensation refused
- Legal Topics
- Definition of Workman, Independent Contractor, Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, Master and Servant, Piecework Contract
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Euphemia Pryde or Hayden, widow of Michael Hayden
Claimant and Respondent
George Dick, builder and quarrymaster
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Sheriff Court Arbitration / Inner House Second Division Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the deceased Michael Hayden was a workman in the sense of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897
Ratio Decidendi
The deceased was not a workman in the sense of the Act but an independent contractor, as the contract was for a specific piece of work, with no obligation to work personally, no control by the employer, and no arrangement for dismissal or notice as in employment.
Court Disposition
compensation refused
Orders
- The question whether the deceased was a workman under the Act answered in the negative.
- Judgment of the Sheriff-Substitute reversed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment