Hughes, Applicant; Quinn, Respondent

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 02 May 1917
• Date: 02 May 1917
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)

Hughes

Applicant

and

Quinn

Respondent (1).

Appeal.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1917.

Master and Servant — Workmen's Compensation — Contract of Service — Control — Expert well-sinker — Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Ed. 7, c. 58), s. 13.

The applicant, who held himself out to the public as an expert well-sinker, entered into an agreement with the respondent to sink a well for him. All the tackle was supplied by the applicant, who during the course of the operations was in no way subject to the control of the respondent. The applicant was paid 8s. a day in addition to his board, and he employed an assistant to whom he paid 3s. a day. Having met with an accident at the work, the applicant claimed compensation. The County Court Judge found that there was no contract of service between the applicant and the respondent.

Held, that as a matter of law the Court was not bound, on the evidence, to find that the applicant was a servant of the respondent.

Appeal from an order of the County Court Judge of Tyrone dismissing the application of the appellant for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Bernard Hughes, the applicant for compensation, was a well-sinker, and held himself out to the public as an expert in that business. He kept bill-heads, which gave details of “prices for sinking and lining wells.” in December, 1915, he was engaged by the respondent to sink a well; he was paid weekly, his remuneration being at the rate of 8s. a day, in addition to his board, which was worth 14s. a week extra; and he had to pay 3s. a day to a helper. Sometimes the applicant worked at so much per foot. On the occasion in question he supplied all the tackle; but the respondent supplied powder for blowing up the bottom of the well and paid £3 15s. to the applicant for blasting-powder which he had bought. Beyond pointing out the spot where he wanted to have the well made, the respondent exercised no control over the applicant. In his evidence the respondent said: “I had nothing to say to the work at the well, and had no control whatever.”

When the well was 42 feet deep, the applicant fell to the bottom, the rope attached to the bucket in which he was

descending having given way. His ankle and three ribs were fractured.

The County Court Judge dismissed the application of Hughes for compensation, holding upon...