Crowley v Sweeney

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1943
• Date: 01 January 1943
• Court: Supreme Court

Crowley v. Sweeney

In re THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1934, ANTHONY CROWLEY

Applicant

and

EDWARD SWEENEY, Respondent (1)

Supreme Court.

Workmen's compensation - Workman - "Excepted person" - Casual employment of labourer by farmer - Labourer sent by employer to assist another farmer in district - Practice among farmers to help one another by lending services of labourers in their employment - Accident occurring to labourer while working for farmer to whom he had been sent by employer - Whether labourer employed "for the purposes of his employer's trade or business"and therefore not an "excepted person" - Workmen's Compensation Act,1934 (No. 9 of 1934), s. 5, sub-ss. 1 and 2.

The applicant's employment was of a casual nature with S., a small farmer, by whom he was employed for harvesting operations. He worked for two days on the farm belonging to S. but on the third day, by the direction of S., he went to the farm of G., another farmer in the district, to assist him in threshing. It was the usual practice among the farmers at harvesting time to lend men to one another for extra work. S. had received labour help from G. for his own threshing, without which help it would have been difficult for him to carry out his harvesting. He could not expect to receive such help unless he were in a position to reciprocate by lending G. the services of an employee such as the applicant.

The applicant remained in the employment of S. during the day on which he worked on G.'s farm, and while so working he met with an accident in respect of which he claimed compensation from S. under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934, and obtained an award in his favour in the Circuit Court.

On appeal by S. to the Supreme Court:

Held by the Supreme Court that the applicant was employed "for the purposes of his employer's trade or business" within the meaning of those words in clause (b) of sub-s. 2 of s. 5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934, and that, accordingly, although his employment was of a casual nature he was not an "excepted person" but was a workman within the meaning of s. 5 of the Act, and was therefore entitled to compensation.

Application to the Supreme Court by Edward Sweeney by way of appeal from an order of the Circuit Court Judge for the South Eastern Circuit (Judge Sealy) made on the 19th May, 1942, awarding compensation to Anthony Crowley under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934, for an injury sustained by him while working on the farm of...