Crowley v Sweeney

JurisdictionIreland
CourtSupreme Court
Judgment Date01 January 1943
Date01 January 1943

Supreme Court.

Crowley v. Sweeney
In re THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1934, ANTHONY CROWLEY
Applicant
and
EDWARD SWEENEY, Respondent (1)

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.

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 a farmer named Griffin, whose farm was in the neighbourhood of the farm owned by the appellant, Edward Sweeney.

The facts have been summarised in the headnote and are sufficiently stated for the purposes of this report in the judgment of Sullivan C.J.

The material portion of the judgment of the Circuit Court Judge, with which this appeal is concerned, was as follows:—

"On the first branch of this case on the defence raised by Mr. Budd that this man does not come under the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act because his employment

was of a casual nature and that he was not employed for the purpose of his employer's trade or business, I fined that his employment certainly was of a casual nature.

I think it is practically common case that he was only engaged by Mr. Sweeney, the respondent, for some little harvesting operations that Mr. Sweeney had at the time; he is quite a small farmer.

The other branch of the case is a little more difficult —that he was not at all on this day employed for the purpose of his employer's trade or business because on this day he was sent by Sweeney down to a friend's farm, that friend wanting extra labour for the purpose of threshing. No doubt he was working down at the friend's farm that day and he was under the control of the friend, but he was being paid by Sweeney, and, having regard to the practice there is in that part of the country—I think it is common over a large part of Ireland, the practice of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT