Hartlepool Seatonia Steamship Company Ltd v Scanlon (No. 2)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 06 December 1929
• Date: 06 December 1929
• Court: High Court (Irish Free State)

Scanlon v. Hartlepool Seatonia Steamship Company (No. 2).

SCANLON

and

HARTLEPOOL SEATONIA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Limited (No. 2) (1)

High Court.

Workmen's compensation - "Workman" or independent contractor - Gang of men employed to unload vessel - Not paid by time worked but for work done - Aggregate payment handed to men's representative - Absence of control - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Ed. 7,c. 58), sect. 1, sub-sect. 1, sect. 13.

Respondents, a steamship company, employed a number of dock labourers, without the intervention of a stevedore or other independent contractor, to unload their vessel at a rate of remuneration which depended, not on the days or hours worked by each man, but on the number of tons

of grain taken off the vessel. The rate of remuneration for the work to be done was a fixed sum per ton, and the aggregate amount was paid by the company to certain representatives of the men, who divided it equally amongst those who had done the work. There were 56 men, divided into 8 gangs of 7 men each. One member of each gang was called a "foreman," but he did the same work and received the same remuneration as the other men. While unloading the vessel one of these men was fatally injured, and his dependents claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. The respondents contended that they had no control, and, in fact, exercised no control, or supervision over the men's work, and that, in view of all the facts, the deceased was not a workman in their employment within the meaning of the Act.

Held, that there was evidence to support the finding of the Circuit Court Judge that the deceased was a workman in the employment of the respondents, and his dependents were entitled to compensation under the Act.

M'Cready v. Dunlop, 2 F. 1027, applied.

Appeal from the Circuit Court.

The applicants lodged a request for arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, in respect of a fatal accident to John Scanlon, which occurred on the 13th of October, 1926, when he, with a number of other workmen, was engaged in the unloading of a vessel, the property of the respondents, in Sligo Harbour. The case had previously come before the High Court on appeal, on the question of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court Judge to entertain the application. The High Court decided that, notwithstanding the fact that the respondents were an English company, without any registered office in the Irish Free State, the Circuit Court Judge had jurisdiction to hear the application (1). The High Court then directed that the case should be sent back to the Circuit Court Judge to consider the request for arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

The grounds relied on by the respondents in their answer to the applicants' request for arbitration are set out ante, p. 96.

On the re-hearing of the case, the Circuit Court Judge made an order, by which, after dealing with the application for the extension of the time for service of the request for arbitration, and with the services of the notice of claim upon the respondents and the statutory notice of the accident, he ordered as follows:"The respondents do pay the sum of £300 to the dependents of John Scanlon, deceased, as compensation for the injury resulting to such dependents from the death of the said John Scanlon, which took place on the 14th day of October, 1926, from the injury caused to the said John Scanlon on the 13th day of October, 1926, by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment as a workman employed by the respondents, as I hold in law and in fact that the respondents were the employers of the said John Scanlon."

From this decision the respondents appealed.

The grounds of their appeal were as follows:—

"(a) That the learned Circuit Judge misdirected himself in law in holding that the relationship of master and servant existed between John Scanlon, deceased, and the Hartlepool Seatonia Steamship Co., Ltd.

(b) That there was no evidence to support the finding that a contract of service existed between the said John Scanlon and the Hartlepool Seatonia Steamship Co...