O'Neill v. John Brown & Co., Ltd

Held that on the facts stated the arbitrator was entitled to find that the workman's refusal was the cause of his continued incapacity, and he was not entitled to refuse, and it precluded him from the right to further compensation.

John O'Neill, labourer, Yoker, appellant , presented a Stated Case under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. VII, cap. 58) against a decision of the Sheriff-Substitute ( Macdiarmid ) at Dumbarton, whereby in an application at the instance of John Brown & Company, Limited, shipbuilders, Clydebank, respondents , the compensation payable by them to him was reduced to one penny per week.

The Case stated—“This is an arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, in which the respondents, by minute of review lodged on 28th August 1912, craved the Court to review and end a weekly payment of 14s. 6d. to which the appellant was entitled under an agreement entered into between appellant and respondents—a memorandum of which was recorded in the books of the Court on 16th June 1911—in respect that the appellant refused to undergo a simple operation which would bring his incapacity to an end or at least greatly lessen the same.

On 10th September 1912 the appellant lodged a note of defence in which he set forth that acting on the advice of his doctors he refused to undergo the said operation, and pleaded that in the whole circumstances his refusal was reasonable.

“On these facts I found that the appellant's present incapacity was fairly to be ascribed to his refusal to undergo the proposed operation, and that he was not entitled so to refuse. I therefore (on the suggestion of the agent for the respondents), in order to keep matters open, reduced the compensation payable by the respondents to the appellant to 1d. per week, and found no expenses due to or by either party.”