Galway County Council v Galway Board of Health

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 19 March 1931
• Date: 19 March 1931
• Court: High Court (Irish Free State)

Galway Co. Council v. Galway Board of Health

COUNTY COUNCIL OF GALWAY

Plaintiffs

and

THE COUNTY OF GALWAY BOARD OF HEALTH AND PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

Defendants.

Workmen's Compensation - Workman employed by County Council injured by motor ambulance - Workman awarded compensation - Motor ambulance owned by County Council's Board of Health - Claim for indemnity by County Council against Board of Health - Negligence - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), sect. 6, sub-sect.2 - Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), sect. 10, sub-sect.2, sects. 12, 14.

Trial of Action.

On the 10th of June, 1927, Michael Corley, a workman in the employment of the County Council of the County of Galway, while engaged in the unloading of a cart-load of stones on the road from Galway to Athenry was knocked down and dragged some distance by a motor ambulance, the property of the County of Galway Board of Health and Public Assistance, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. He took proceedings in the High Court against the Board of Health, claiming damages for the injuries he had sustained. This action was subsequently transferred to the Circuit Court. He then lodged a request for arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, claiming compensation from his employers, the Galway County Council. The County Council admitted liability, and submitted to an award for the payment to him of a weekly sum of £1 6s. 7d., and on the 4th October, 1927, the Circuit Court Judge for Galway made an award directing payment of such weekly sum accordingly. When this award had been made, Corley discontinued his action against the Board of Health. Ho was paid the sum of £9 by the Board of Health. The receipt which he gave for this payment (which was dated the 10th November, 1927) stated that the amount was "in full discharge of any claim that I may have had against the above-named defendants [the Board of Health] in the above matter for damages and costs." On the 12th May, 1928, the County Council applied to the Circuit Court Judge for Galway, claiming an indemnity against the Board of Health under sect. 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, on the ground that the injury to their workman for which compensation was payable was caused under circumstances creating a legal liability in the Board of Health to pay damages in respect of the injury. On the hearing of this application, the Board of Health relied on the receipt given to them by Corley for the £9 paid to him, but his solicitor contended that there was a mistake in the receipt, as the money was not paid for "damages and costs," but for costs only. Evidence was then heard on this point, and the Circuit Court Judge, being of opinion that the money had been paid for costs only, stated that he was satisfied that the County Council were entitled to be indemnified by the Board of Health for the amount they had paid to Corley and for all costs reasonably incurred, including the costs of the application. The Board of Health appealed against this decision, and the High Court discharged it, on the ground that there was no evidence of any unqualified admission of liability by the Board of Health, and the Court ordered that the application by the County Council be remitted for a new trial to the Circuit Court Judge. When the application came again before the Circuit Court Judge, the point was raised by the Board of Health that, in the absence of consent, the Circuit Court Judge had no jurisdiction, and the Circuit Court Judge so held.

The County Council then commenced the present action by plenary summons against the Board of Health, their claim being as follows:—

"1. A declaration that, pursuant to sect. 6, sub-sect. 2, of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, the plaintiffs are entitled to be indemnified by the defendants for the amount of compensation, damages, and costs, which the plaintiffs have been obliged to pay pursuant to an award made by the Circuit Court Judge for Galway on the 4th of October, 1927, to one, Michael Corley, a servant in the employment of the plaintiffs, who met with an accident which arose out of, and in the course of, his employment, and was occasioned by the negligence of the defendants, their servants, or agents, in or about the driving, care, and management of a motor ambulance, the property of the defendants, on the road from Galway to Athenry on the 10th of June, 1927, and under circumstances creating a legal liability in the said defendants. 2. An inquiry as to the amount which the plaintiffs have been obliged to pay, and the amount now payable to the plaintiffs by the defendants pursuant to the said indemnity. 3. An order for payment of the amount due. 4. An order that all future payments for compensation, costs, or otherwise shall be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs, and that the defendants shall indemnify the plaintiffs against all liability therefor. 5. That all necessary accounts and inquiries be taken."

The defendants in their defence pleaded that the action did not lie; that the County of Galway Board of Health and Public Assistance was a committee of the County Council of the County of Galway; that all the funds of the County of Galway Board of Health and Public Assistance were provided by the County Council, and that no action could be brought by the County Council against the County of Galway Board of Health and Public Assistance, as such an action would be contrary to law, and would, in fact, amount to an action being brought by a person against himself. They denied the facts set out in the statement of claim, and they pleaded that if the workman, Corley, was injured as alleged, the injury was caused exclusively by his negligence. And they further said that if there was any negligence on their part, which they denied, there was contributory negligence on the part of Corley. They further pleaded that on the 12th May, 1928, the plaintiffs brought proceedings against the defendants for the indemnity claimed in this action before the Circuit Court Judge, who awarded damages to the plaintiffs on foot of the said indemnity. On appeal to the High Court this decision was set aside, and the case was sent back to the Circuit Court Judge for a re-trial, when the application was dismissed. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs were estopped by the decision of...