Chisholm v. Walker & Co. [1908] ScotLR 24 (28 October 1908)

Chisholm v. Walker & Co. [1908] ScotLR 24 (28 October 1908)

The appellant was not a 'workman' under the Act because he was not under a contract of service; he was an independent contractor, not obliged to perform work personally, and payment was for the use of his horse rather than his own labour.

Citation
[1908] ScotLR 24
Parties
Appellant: Thomas Chisholm; Respondent: James Walker & Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 October 1908
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal / Court of Session Inner House Second Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Definition of Workman, Independent Contractor, Contract of Service, Workmen's Compensation Act 1906
Employment Law Compensation Law Definition of Workman Independent Contractor Contract of Service Workmen's Compensation Act 1906

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

Parties

Thomas Chisholm

Appellant

James Walker & Company

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Appeal / Court of Session Inner House Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the appellant a 'workman' under section 13 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906?
  2. 2 Was the appellant under a contract of service or an independent contractor?

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not a 'workman' under the Act because he was not under a contract of service; he was an independent contractor, not obliged to perform work personally, and payment was for the use of his horse rather than his own labour.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of Sheriff-Substitute affirmed
  • Appellant not entitled to compensation under the Act