A miner who had been injured by an accident was awarded compensation in respect of partial incapacity, and thereafter obtained light work at a reduced wage. His right to compensation was with his consent subsequently terminated in consequence of a general rise in the level of wages, which brought the amount he was able to earn above the pre-accident level. The light work on which he was employed having ceased owing to the pit being flooded as the sequel of a strike, and no other employment being available for him, he applied for a renewal of compensation. Held ( aff. the judgment of the Second Division) that as the workman’s incapacity due to the accident still continued, his right to compensation was not terminated by the supervening of a period of unemployment, and that accordingly he was entitled to compensation.
2. John Watson, Limited v. Quinn.
3. William Dixon, Limited v. Madden.
A miner who had been injured by an accident was awarded compensation in respect of partial incapacity and thereafter obtained light work at the surface. His right to compensation was subsequently terminated in consequence of a general rise in the level of wages, which brought the amount he was able to earn above the pre-accident level. On wages falling again below that level in consequence of economic causes he applied for a renewal of compensation. His physical condition remained the same as it was at the date of the original award. But for the accident he would have been able during this period to earn as a miner a wage substantially the same as his average weekly earnings prior to the accident. Held ( aff. the judgment of the Second Division) that as the workman’s inability to earn his former wage was due to the incapacity caused by the accident and not to economic causes, he was entitled to an award of compensation.
Earl of Birkenhead, Viscount Finlay, Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Shaw
[1923] UKHL 615, 60 SLR 615
Bailii
Scotland
Employment, Personal Injury
Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.633261