Frame v. Taylor [1918] ScotLR 288 (26 February 1918)

Frame v. Taylor [1918] ScotLR 288 (26 February 1918)

Payments made by the employer to the pursuer prior to 14th March 1917 were not made or received as compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, but as charitable payments in accordance with company practice; no agreement to accept compensation under the Act was proved, and the subsequent agreement to refund payments if damages were recovered further negated the statutory bar. Therefore, the pursuer was not barred from maintaining the damages action against the defender.

Citation
[1918] ScotLR 288
Parties
Pursuer: Alexander Frame; Defender: T. S. Taylor
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 February 1918
Procedural Posture
Reparation (personal Injury) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House
Outcome
interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; second plea-in-law for defender repelled; case remitted to proceed
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Master and Servant, Bar to Action, Personal Injury, Statutory Interpretation
Tort Employment Law Workmen's Compensation Master and Servant Bar to Action Personal Injury Statutory Interpretation

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

Alexander Frame

Pursuer

T. S. Taylor

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reparation (personal Injury) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payments made by employer to injured employee constituted 'compensation recovered' under section 6(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, thereby barring a damages action against a third party.
  2. 2 Whether an agreement to refund such payments if damages were recovered prevented the statutory bar from operating.

Ratio Decidendi

Payments made by the employer to the pursuer prior to 14th March 1917 were not made or received as compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, but as charitable payments in accordance with company practice; no agreement to accept compensation under the Act was proved, and the subsequent agreement to refund payments if damages were recovered further negated the statutory bar. Therefore, the pursuer was not barred from maintaining the damages action against the defender.

Court Disposition

interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; second plea-in-law for defender repelled; case remitted to proceed

Orders

  • Recall of Lord Ordinary's interlocutor sustaining the bar and assoilzieing the defender.
  • Repel the second plea-in-law for the defender (statutory bar).