Brady v Córas Iompair Éireann

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judgment Date: 03 June 1948
• Date: 03 June 1948

Brady v. Córas Iompair Éireann.

In re The WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1934; DANIEL BRADY

Applicant

and

C ÓRAS IOMPAIR córasÉIREANN éireann, Respondents (1)

Supreme Court.

Workmen's Compensation - Incapacity resulting from accident - Partial incapacity - Re-employment at wages equal to pre-accident wages - Dismissal for misconduct - Right to compensation - "Post-accident average weekly amount" - ". . . is earning or is able to earn in some suitable employment" - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934 (No. 9 of 1934),s. 23; Sch. III, rr. 1 and 4.

The applicant, a workman employed by the respondents, met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on the 16th September, 1946, and became totally incapacitated. He was paid full compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934, from the 16th September, 1946, to the 1st April, 1947, when, though still partially incapacitated, he returned to work and wag paid at the pre-accident weekly rate. In August, 1947, he was dismissed from the employment for misconduct. He instituted proceedings under the Act of 1934, claiming compensation in respect of the said accident from the date of dismissal. The President of the Circuit Court found that but for his misconduct the applicant's post-accident average weekly earnings would have been the same as his pre-accident average weekly earnings, and dismissed the application. The applicant appealed:

Held by the Supreme Court (Maguire C.J., Murnaghan, Geoghegan and O'Byrne JJ.; Black J. dissenting) that, as the appellant's inability to earn his pre-accident average weekly earnings after his dismissal was due to his misconduct, the President of the Circuit Court was right in holding that there was no difference between the amount of his pre-accident average weekly earnings and the "post-accident average weekly amount" which he was "able to earn in some suitable employment."

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Appeal by Daniel Brady from an order dismissing his application for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934, made by the President of the Circuit Court in the Dublin Circuit Court on the 27th January, 1948.

The appellant, who was employed by the respondents as a tram-conductor, on the 16th September, 1946, met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and, from that date until the 1st April, 1947, he was totally incapacitated for work. He received full compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934, in respect of the period from the 16th September, 1946, to the 1st April, 1947, when, although still partially incapacitated, he returned to work and was paid at his pre-accident weekly rate of wages. In the month of August, 1947, he was dismissed from his employment for misconduct, and he then commenced proceedings to recover compensation under the Act of 1934 from the date of his dismissal on the basis of total incapacity. The President of the Circuit Court found that he was still

partially incapacitated for work and that, but for his misconduct he would have continued to earn wages equal to his pre-accident earnings, and that accordingly there was no difference between his pre-accident and his post-accident average weekly earnings. He therefore dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Maguire C.J. :—

The appellant in this case met with an accident on the 16th September, 1946. He made application for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934. He has findings in his favour that the accident was one which arose out of and in the course of his employment, that he was totally incapacitated as from the date of the accident, and that his pre-accident average weekly earnings were £5. He has also a finding in his favour that he has been partially incapacitated as from the 1st April, 1947, when he was re-employed by the respondents at his old job as a conductor. Nevertheless, the learned President of the Circuit Court found that there was no difference between his pre-accident and post-accident average weekly earnings; accordingly, he...