Hayden v. Dick [1902] ScotLR 40_95 (26 November 1902)

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 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.