Healy v. James Macgregor & Ferguson [1900] ScotLR 37_454 (20 February 1900)

Healy v. James Macgregor & Ferguson [1900] ScotLR 37_454 (20 February 1900)

The dock was not a factory under the Act because no dock machinery was used in loading; only the ship's steam winch was used. Therefore, the employment was not covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 and the respondents were not liable.

Citation
[1900] ScotLR 37_454
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Patrick Healy; Respondents: James MacGregor & Ferguson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 February 1900
Procedural Posture
Appeal on Stated Case in Arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 / Inner House Second Division Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed; appeal denied
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Definition of Factory, Dock Labour, Use of Machinery
Employment Law Personal Injury Reparation Workmen's Compensation Definition of Factory Dock Labour Use of Machinery

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

Parties

Patrick Healy

Claimant/appellant

James MacGregor & Ferguson

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal on Stated Case in Arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 / Inner House Second Division Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a dock is a factory under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 when dock machinery is not used
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation when injured during loading using ship's machinery
  3. 3 Applicability of the Act to the employment circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The dock was not a factory under the Act because no dock machinery was used in loading; only the ship's steam winch was used. Therefore, the employment was not covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 and the respondents were not liable.

Court Disposition

application dismissed; appeal denied

Orders

  • affirm dismissal of application
  • respondents entitled to expenses of stated case