Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was an appeal at the instance of Robert Murdoch, builder, Glasgow, in an arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act at the instance of Patrick Fagan, workman, who claimed £200 as compensation for the death of his son.

The following facts were stated by the Sheriff ( Strachan), as having been proved in the case:—“(1) That said deceased John Fagan died on 28th February 1899, from injuries sustained by him while a workman in the employment of the appellant in the sense of The Workmen's Compensation Act. (2) That the respondent is the father of the said John Fagan, and was partially dependent for his maintenance on his said son at the time of his death. (3) That the average wage of the said John Fagan while in the employment of the appellant was 23s. 6d. per week, so that the total amount of compensation payable by the appellant under the Act was £187. (4) That the said John Fagan was survived by a widow, but no children, and an arrangement was entered into between the appellant and Margaret Skerry or Fagan, then wife now widow of the said John Fagan, under which she accepted the sum of £80 as in full of all claims then competent to her or which might arise through the death of her said husband, in addition to the sum of £20 for funeral expenses. These sums, together with a further sum of £3, were duly paid by the appellant, on which a discharge was granted by the said widow in favour of the appellant, in full ‘of all claims either existing then or to become due on the death of my said husband.’ This discharge forms No. 3 of process. (5) That at the time of said discharge the appellant understood that the said Margaret Skerry or Fagan was the only person entitled to compensation in respect of the death of the said John Fagan. (6) That the widow of the said John Fagan was, on 12th April 1899, four months gone in pregnancy, conform to medical certificate, which forms No. 5 of process.” The Sheriff proceeded:—“On these facts I held that the respondent was partially dependent on his son at the time of his death, and I awarded, him the sum of £25 as compensation due to him under the Act, and also found him entitled to £5, 5s. of expenses.”

The following questions were submitted for the opinion of the Court:—“(1) Whether the fact that the respondent held a decree for aliment against the deceased and received payment of aliment from him constituted the respondent a part dependent within the meaning of the Act? (2) Whether the fact that the deceased left a dependent wholly dependent on him excludes the claim of the respondent as a part dependent on the deceased?”

At advising—