Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 (60 and 61 Vict. c. 37), sec. 2 (1), enacts-“Proceedings for the recovery under this Act of compensation for an injury shall not be maintainable unless notice of the accident has been given as soon as practicable after the happening thereof, and before the workman has voluntarily left the employment in which he was injured, and unless the claim for compensation with respect to such accident has been made within six months from the occurrence of the accident causing the injury, or, in case of death, within six months from the time of death: provided always that the want of or any defect or inaccuracy in such notice shall not be a bar to the maintenance of such proceedings, if it is found in the proceedings for settling the claim that the employer is not prejudiced in his defence by the want, defect, or inaccuracy, or that such want, defect, or inaccuracy was occasioned by mistake or other reasonable cause.”

The following case in an appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 was stated by one of the Sheriff-Substitutes of Aberdeen, Kincardine, and Banff ( Robertson) This is an arbitration in which the respondent claims compensation from the appellant to the amount of 17s. weekly as from 30th August 1904, but under deduction of £38, 11s. 11d. paid to account, with expenses.

“The grounds of the claim are that the respondent was employed by the appellant on 16th August 1904 at the erection of a house. The building was then over 30 feet in height, and scaffolding was being used for its construction. The respondent, while engaged at said building on said date, sustained

Page: 192↓

injuries, and was unable to earn any wages until 5th July last, when he resumed work with the appellant till 26th July last, but has been unable to work since said last-mentioned date.

On 20th September 1904 the respondent's law-agent wrote the following letter, which was admittedly received by the appellant— 181 Union Street, Aberdeen, Mr James Park, 20th Septr., 1904.

Joiner,

13 Balmoral Terrace, Aberdeen.

Dear Sir,—I am instructed on behalf of Mr George Maver, joiner, 193 Holborn Street, Aberdeen, to give formal notice of the claim arising in respect of injuries received by him whilst in your employment on 16th August 1904 at new house in course of construction at Roslin Terrace, Aberdeen, caused by a mortar-tub falling on him off a crane, with the result that his head was severely cut and his back and one of his arms injured, besides being stunned and suffering a serious nervous shock. I understand you are already acquainted with the circumstances, but it is necessary to give you notice in order to found proceedings should these be necessary for obtaining compensation.—Yours faithfully,

T. R. .”

The respondent raised the present proceedings in the Sheriff Court at Aberdeen on 4th August 1905.

“The appellant's pleas-in-law were, inter alia—The application is irrelevant.

2. ‘The application is excluded, and is incompetent, in respect that the claim now maintained with respect to said accident was not made within six months from the occurrence of the accident as required by section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897.’

The Sheriff-Substitute ( Sandeman), acting at Aberdeen on 21st August 1905, heard parties, and held that the letter above copied was a claim for compensation in the sense of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, section 2, and therefore repelled the pleas-in-law above quoted, and quoad ultra allowed proof, which was led before me on 19th October 1905. On the evidence adduced at said proof I held that the respondent was entitled to compensation at the rate of 12s. 3d. per week, and I accordingly awarded him this amount.

The question in law for the opinion of the Court is—“Whether the letter of 20th September 1904 above copied was a claim for compensation in the sense of section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897?

Argued for the appellant—The letter was not a “claim” within the meaning of the Act, inasmuch as it did not contain a demand for a definite sum of money. It was only a “notice”— Bennett v. Wordie & Company, May 16, 1899, 1 F. 855, 36 S.L.R. 643; Powell v. Main Colliery Company, Limited, [1900] AC 366.

Argued for respondent—The letter was a good “claim, and not merely a “notice.” The only object of section 2 was to impose a time limit within which proceedings must be taken, and accordingly it merely enacted that a “claim for compensation” must be made within a certain time; it did not enact that the amount claimed must be stated—presumably, however, it would be the maximum provided by the Act—that being a matter of no moment so far as concerned the immediate purpose of the section. Any introduction of additional technical requirements was utterly opposed to the spirit of the statute—see the Lord Chancellor's opinion in Powell. That case was an authority for the proposition that anything which could fairly be called a claim was sufficient. The letter here was in a better position than the letter in Bennett, but, in any case, Bennett was inconsistent with Powell, and in the more recent case of Fraser v. Great North of Scotland Railway Company, June 11, 1901, 3 F. 908, 38 S.L.R. 653, although the question of the necessity of the claim being for a definite amount was left an open one, there were distinct indications of opinion in favour of the view now contended for by the respondent. A technical illiberal interpretation of the Workmen's Compensation Act was always to be avoided.