Price v Guest, Keen, and Nettlefolds, Ltd: HL 17 Jun 1918

On 10th March 1916 a workman who had been employed by the respondents for the preceding three years was killed by an accident in one of the respondents’ collieries. The respondents disputed the method of computing the compensation due to his dependants. From 1st to 13th July 1915 the deceased workman worked ‘day by day.’ From 14th to 21st July owing to a strike he did not work. At the end of the strike he returned to work at increased wages. The dependants claimed that during the period of strike the deceased was not employed by the respondents and the compensation fell to be computed on the basis of his subsequent earnings. The respondents contended that his employment had been continuous.
Held (dis. L. C. Finlay) that the onus of proving the discontinuance of the employment was on the appellant, and there was no evidence to establish her contention.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Finlay), Lords Atkinson and Wrenbury

Citations:

[1918] UKHL 361, 56 SLR 361

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Personal Injury

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.631478