M'Dougall v. M'Dougall [1911] ScotLR 315 (26 January 1911)

M'Dougall v. M'Dougall [1911] ScotLR 315 (26 January 1911)

A son of full age, employed by his father and ordinarily residing in his father's house, remains a 'member of the employer's family dwelling in his house' within the meaning of section 13 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, even if temporarily absent for work, and is therefore excluded from the definition of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1911] ScotLR 315
Parties
Appellant: Ronald M'Dougall; Respondent: Norman Macleod M'Dougall
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 January 1911
Procedural Posture
Workmen's Compensation Arbitration Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute's Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Definition of Workman, Family Members Exclusion, Residence for Statutory Purposes
Employment Law Statutory Interpretation Workmen's Compensation Definition of Workman Family Members Exclusion Residence for Statutory Purposes

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald M'Dougall

Appellant

Norman Macleod M'Dougall

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Workmen's Compensation Arbitration Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a major son employed by his father and living in his father's house is excluded from the definition of 'workman' under section 13 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906
  2. 2 Whether temporary absence from the family home for work purposes affects the status of 'dwelling in his house' under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

A son of full age, employed by his father and ordinarily residing in his father's house, remains a 'member of the employer's family dwelling in his house' within the meaning of section 13 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, even if temporarily absent for work, and is therefore excluded from the definition of 'workman' entitled to compensation under the Act.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • First question of law answered in the affirmative: appellant was a member of the respondent's family dwelling in his house within the meaning of the Act.
  • Second question of law answered in the negative: appellant was not a workman entitled to compensation under the Act.