Purves v. L. Sterne & Co., Ltd [1900] ScotLR 37_696 (22 May 1900)

Purves v. L. Sterne & Co., Ltd [1900] ScotLR 37_696 (22 May 1900)

The respondents, though in control of the machinery during testing, were not occupiers of a factory nor undertakers within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, as the statutory definitions and requirements were not met; section 23 of the Factory and Workshop Act 1895 did not apply to the facts.

Citation
[1900] ScotLR 37_696
Parties
Claimants/appellants: Mrs Annie Smail or Purves, widow of William Wilson Purves, and her children; Respondents: L. Sterne & Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 May 1900
Procedural Posture
Appeal on Stated Case (arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897) / Inner House, Second Division, Court of Session (final Appellate Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for respondents affirmed.
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Definition of Factory and Occupier, Liability for Workplace Death, Statutory Construction
Employment Law Statutory Interpretation Personal Injury Workmen's Compensation Definition of Factory and Occupier Liability for Workplace Death Statutory Construction

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

Parties

Mrs Annie Smail or Purves, widow of William Wilson Purves, and her children

Claimants/appellants

L. Sterne & Company, Limited

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal on Stated Case (arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897) / Inner House, Second Division, Court of Session (final Appellate Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents were occupiers of a factory or undertakers under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 at the time of the accident
  2. 2 Whether the work undertaken was an engineering work within the meaning of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the machinery or premises constituted a factory under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents, though in control of the machinery during testing, were not occupiers of a factory nor undertakers within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, as the statutory definitions and requirements were not met; section 23 of the Factory and Workshop Act 1895 did not apply to the facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for respondents affirmed.

Orders

  • Dismissal of claim for compensation
  • Respondents entitled to expenses of the stated case