Zugg v. J. & J. Cunningham, Ltd [1908] ScotLR 670 (14 May 1908)

Zugg v. J. & J. Cunningham, Ltd [1908] ScotLR 670 (14 May 1908)

The work of tarring the premises was not 'undertaken' by the appellants in the sense required by section 4(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, as their business was chemical manufacturing, not building maintenance. Therefore, the statutory liability for compensation did not arise.

Citation
[1908] ScotLR 670
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Mrs Isabella Dickson or Zugg; Defender/appellant: J. & J. Cunningham, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 May 1908
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Arbitration (sheriff Substitute) / Judgment on Stated Case by Inner House, First Division
Outcome
appeal allowed; claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Sub Contracting Liability, Interpretation of 'work Undertaken', Statutory Construction
Employment Law Statutory Compensation Workmen's Compensation Sub Contracting Liability Interpretation of 'work Undertaken' 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Isabella Dickson or Zugg

Pursuer/respondent

J. & J. Cunningham, Limited

Defender/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Arbitration (sheriff Substitute) / Judgment on Stated Case by Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tarring work was 'work undertaken' by the principal (J. & J. Cunningham, Ltd) within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906
  2. 2 Whether the principal is liable to pay compensation to the workman’s widow under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The work of tarring the premises was not 'undertaken' by the appellants in the sense required by section 4(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, as their business was chemical manufacturing, not building maintenance. Therefore, the statutory liability for compensation did not arise.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; claim dismissed

Orders

  • Both questions of law answered in the negative
  • Interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute recalled