Depuis v Haulbowline Industries Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 30 July 1964
• Date: 30 July 1964
• Court: Supreme Court

Supreme Court.

Depuis v. Haulbowline Industries Ltd.

JEREMIAH DEPUIS

and

HAULBOWLINE INDUSTRIES LIMITED (1)

Workmen's compensation - Personal injuries - Accident arising out of and in the course of employment - Unsuccessful common law proceedings - Appeal - No application made in common law proceeding to assess compensation - Subsequent proceedings for compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934 - Whether proceedings maintainable - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934 (No. 9 of 1934), s. 60.

Workmen's Compensation.

The applicant was injured on the 28th January, 1959, by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and he was paid full compensation up to the 7th September, 1959. On the 29th March, 1960, he instituted proceedings in the High Court to recover damages in respect of the injury caused by the accident. These proceedings were dismissed in the High Court on the 26th October, 1960, and an appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed on the 14th February, 1962. No application to assess workmen's compensation was made in these proceedings. Subsequently, by originating summons, dated the 8th May, 1962, the applicant claimed workmen's compensation in the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court Judge held that workmen's compensation proceedings under the Act were maintainable and awarded the applicant compensation. The employers appealed to the Supreme Court.

A workman, within the time limited by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934, for taking proceedings under that Act, brought proceedings against his employers, independently of the Act, in respect of personal injuries caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The proceedings were unsuccessful, as was also an appeal. The workman did not apply to the Court in those proceedings to assess compensation. He subsequently brought proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934, for compensation in respect of his injuries. The Circuit Court Judge held that workmen's compensation proceedings were maintainable and awarded compensation. On appeal by the employers it was

Held by the Supreme Court ( Ó Dálaigh ó dálaigh C.J., Kingsmill Moore and Walsh JJ.), allowing the appeal, that s. 60, sub-s. 3, of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934, limits a workman, who has failed in proceedings independently of the Act, to enforcing his rights under the Act by an application for compensation at the close of the unsuccessful action and not otherwise.

Cur. adv. vult.

Ó Dálaigh C.J. ó dálaigh :—

The question for decision on this appeal is whether a workman who, within the time limited by the Workmen's Compensation Act for taking proceedings under that Act, has taken proceedings for injury caused by accident against his employers independently of the Workmen's Compensation Acts and who has failed in those proceedings but who did not apply in those proceedings to the Court to assess workmen's compensation may thereafter maintain proceedings in the Circuit Court claiming workmen's compensation. The Circuit Court Judge in this case held that workmen's compensation proceedings were maintainable and awarded compensation. The employers have appealed.

The applicant was injured on the 28th January, 1959, by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and he was paid full compensation for upwards of six months, up to the 7th September, 1959.

On the 29th March, 1960, he instituted proceedings in the High Court to recover damages independently of the Workmen's Compensation Act for the injury caused by the accident. These proceedings were dismissed in the High Court on the 26th October, 1960. An appeal to this Court was dismissed on the 14th February, 1962. No application was made to this Court to assess workmen's compensation. Subsequently, by originating summons dated the 8th May, 1962, the workman claimed workmen's compensation in the Circuit Court. The employers in their statement of defence pleaded that the workman had instituted proceedings independently of the Act which were dismissed and they relied upon s. 60 of the Act, as constituting a bar to the proceedings under the Act.

It will suffice to set out the first three sub-sections of s. 60 of the Act of 1934:—

"(1) Where an injury to a workman is caused by the personal negligence or wilful act of his employer or of some person for whose act or default such employer is liable, nothing in this Act shall affect any civil liability of such employer, but in that case such workman may, at his option, either claim compensation under this Act, or take proceedings independently of this Act.

(2) Nothing in the foregoing sub-section shall be construed to make an employer liable to pay compensation for injury to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment both independently of and also under this Act, or to make an employer liable to any proceedings independently of this Act, except in case of such personal negligence or wilful act as aforesaid.

(3) If, within the time limited by this Act for taking proceedings under this Act, an action is instituted to recover damages independently of this Act for injury caused by accident, and it is determined in such action, or on appeal, that the injury is one for which the employer is not...