Dempster v. Hunter & Sons [1902] ScotLR 39_395 (26 February 1902)

Dempster v. Hunter & Sons [1902] ScotLR 39_395 (26 February 1902)

Window-cleaning is not a part of or process in the trade or business carried on by the tailors in their factory, but merely ancillary or incidental; therefore, the respondents are not liable for compensation under section 4 of the Act.

Citation
[1902] ScotLR 39_395
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Hugh Dempster; Respondents: Hunter & Sons
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 February 1902
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 / Court of Session Inner House Second Division
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Factory Definition, Ancillary or Incidental Work
Reparation Employment Law Workmen's Compensation Factory Definition Ancillary or Incidental Work

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hugh Dempster

Claimant/appellant

Hunter & Sons

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Arbitration Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 / Court of Session Inner House Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether window-cleaning is a part of or process in the trade or business carried on by the respondents as undertakers of their factory under section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897
  2. 2 Whether window-cleaning is merely ancillary or incidental to the said trade or business

Ratio Decidendi

Window-cleaning is not a part of or process in the trade or business carried on by the tailors in their factory, but merely ancillary or incidental; therefore, the respondents are not liable for compensation under section 4 of the Act.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • Affirmed dismissal of the claim by the arbitrator
  • Decerned accordingly