United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Orrell Colliery Co., Ltd v. Schofield [1909] UKHL 1043 (14 May 1909)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1909/46SLR1043.html
Cite as: 46 ScotLR 1043, [1909] UKHL 1043

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_House_of_Lords

Page: 1043↓

House of Lords.

Friday, May 14 1909.

(Before the Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Ashbourne, James of Hereford, Gorell and Shaw.)

46 SLR 1043

(On Appeal from the Court of Appeal in England.)

Orrell Colliery Company, Limited

v.

Schofield.

Subject_Master and Servant — Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. VII, c. 58), sec. 13 — Dependant — Posthumous and Illegitimate Child.
Facts:

A workman was killed by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. At the date of his death he was engaged to be married; the banns had been published at his expense and the wedding day fixed; the woman was pregnant with a child which the workman had acknowledged to be his own and intended to maintain.

Held that the after-born illegitimate child was a dependant under sec. 13 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906. The claim of a posthumous illegitimate child for compensation as a dependant of a deceased workman was sustained by the County Court Judge and affirmed by the Court of Appeal ( Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Moulton And Farwell, L.JJ.), reported [1909] 1 KB 178.

Headnote:

The employers appealed.

After the argument for the appellants their Lordships gave judgment as follows:—

Judgment:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn)—I move your Lordships that this appeal be dismissed with costs. I do not propose to add anything on the question either of illegitimate children or of posthumous children, as I agree with what has been said by the Court of Appeal on those subjects. As far as the language of the statute is concerned with respect to the question of dependency the real practical matter is whether assistance has been given, or could reasonably have been expected, from the victim of the accident. In this case there was such a reasonable anticipation that the child would have been maintained or assisted by the father.

Lords Ashbourne, James Of Hereford, Gorell, and Shaw concurred.

Appeal dismissed.

Counsel:

Counsel for Appellants— C. A. Russell, K.C.— Rigby Swift. Agents— W. P. Ellen, for Peace & Darlington, Liverpool.

Counsel for Respondent— Langdon, K.C.— G. A. Scott. Agents— Burn & Berridge, for James Wilson, Wigan.
1909

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010