Briggs v. Mitchell [1911] ScotLR 606 (16 March 1911)

Briggs v. Mitchell [1911] ScotLR 606 (16 March 1911)

Dependency must be determined on the facts; as the child was maintained by Mrs Richmond and her husband and not by the deceased mother, there was no dependency on the mother's earnings at the time of her death. Legal obligation to support does not create a presumption of dependency under the Act.

Citation
[1911] ScotLR 606
Parties
Appellant: Matthew Mitchell; Respondents: Elizabeth Young Richmond Briggs (residing with James Richmond, carter, Hurlford) and James Richmond as her curator ad litem
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 March 1911
Procedural Posture
Appeal on Stated Case From Sheriff Court / Inner House, Second Division, Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal allowed; questions of law answered in the negative.
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Dependency, Illegitimate Child, Master and Servant
Employment Law Compensation Law Workmen's Compensation Dependency Illegitimate Child Master and Servant

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Mitchell

Appellant

Elizabeth Young Richmond Briggs (residing with James Richmond, carter, Hurlford) and James Richmond as her curator ad litem

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal on Stated Case From Sheriff Court / Inner House, Second Division, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the child was wholly or partially dependent on the earnings of her deceased mother at the time of her death under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906.

Ratio Decidendi

Dependency must be determined on the facts; as the child was maintained by Mrs Richmond and her husband and not by the deceased mother, there was no dependency on the mother's earnings at the time of her death. Legal obligation to support does not create a presumption of dependency under the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; questions of law answered in the negative.

Orders

  • Sheriff-Substitute's decision reversed; no compensation payable to the child as a dependant under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906.