Watson v. William Beardmore & Co., Ltd [1914] ScotLR 621 (27 May 1914)

Watson v. William Beardmore & Co., Ltd [1914] ScotLR 621 (27 May 1914)

The arbitrator, having found as a matter of fact that the loss of the left thumb did not impair the appellant's chance of employment in his former or any reasonably attainable line of work, was entitled to end compensation and was not required to issue a suspensory order.

Citation
[1914] ScotLR 621
Parties
Appellant: Hugh Watson; Respondent: William Beardmore & Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 May 1914
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 / Appeal to Court of Session Inner House Second Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; question of law answered in the affirmative for the respondents.
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Termination of Compensation, Permanent Injury, Suspensory Orders, Review of Arbitrator's Decision
Labour Law Personal Injury Statutory Compensation Workmen's Compensation Termination of Compensation Permanent Injury Suspensory Orders Review of Arbitrator's Decision

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

Hugh Watson

Appellant

William Beardmore & Company, Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 / Appeal to Court of Session Inner House Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator could competently end compensation payable to the appellant after finding the injury did not impair his employment prospects.
  2. 2 Whether a suspensory order was mandatory in cases of permanent injury.

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator, having found as a matter of fact that the loss of the left thumb did not impair the appellant's chance of employment in his former or any reasonably attainable line of work, was entitled to end compensation and was not required to issue a suspensory order.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; question of law answered in the affirmative for the respondents.

Orders

  • Compensation to appellant ended as at 28th October 1913.
  • Appellant found liable in expenses.