Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Subject_1 Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. VII, cap. 58), First Schedule (3) Subject_2 Partial Incapacity Subject_3 Application by Workman for Review of Compensation Subject_4 Relevancy of Averment of a General Reduction of Wages. Facts: Held that a miner had not set forth relevant grounds for asking review of compensation where the sole ground averred was that since his compensation was fixed there had been “a general reduction of wages to the extent of at least 2s. per shift.”
An arbitration was held in the Sheriff Court of Lanarkshire at Hamilton between William Quilter, miner, 118 Main Street, Shotts, appellant , and the Kepplehill Coal Company, Limited, respondents , to determine the rate of compensation payable to the appellant in respect of partial incapacity due to injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondents. The appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of the Sheriff-Substitute ( Shennan ) appealed by Stated Case.
The Case further stated—“The sole ground on which the appellant claims an increase in the rate of his compensation is that since 5th February 1921 the respondents ‘refuse to make payment of compensation reasonable and adequate in the circumstances having in view the fact that since 31st January 1921 there has been a general reduction of wages to the extent of at least 2s. per shift.’
I heard parties' agents on 10th May 1921, and on 16th May 1921 I issued an opinion in which I found that the appellant had not set forth relevant grounds for asking review of compensation. On 27th May 1921 I dismissed the appellant's application.
I was of opinion that a general fall in the rate of wages did not in itself constitute a change of circumstances which justified the appellant in demanding that his rate of compensation should be increased. I held that the requisite change of circumstances must be one personal to the workman, and not merely a general economic change affecting him in common with uninjured workmen.”
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.