United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn)—In my opinion the judgment appealed from is right, and the appeal should be dismissed. I agree with the Master of the Rolls. The Workmen's Compensation Act applies and the object and effect of section 9 are only to exempt the Crown from being rendered liable under the Act. The rights and liabilities created by the Act apply to cases between the Crown and persons not in the naval and military services. The point was made that there was no contract with the Crown at all here. But the authorities cited went no further than to say that when there was an engagement between the Crown and military or naval officers the Crown was always entitled to determine it at pleasure, and that no obligation contrary to that would be recognised as valid in law. It was then said that there were no concurrent contracts here. I cannot accept that view, and I agree with Fletcher Moulton, L. J., that this is almost a typical case of concurrent contracts, because the claimant was being paid wages for his services on board a merchant ship and at the same time he was earning about £6 a-year by virtue of his engagement with the Crown, and he was giving an equivalent for it, because he was keeping himself fit for doing the work which he had stipulated to do. With regard to the contention that the Crown was not an employer, that is only another way of putting the point, which I think cannot be sustained on the construction of section 9 of the Act. It is manifest that the Act contemplated that the Crown might be an employer, and it was, I think, so intended in the schedule to the Act.

Lord Atkinson—I agree.

Lord Shaw—In the case of the naval and military service it is clear there is a peril to life and limb, and in such circumstances it is not unnatural that the Crown as an employer should not be liable for consequences imposed upon ordinary employers. Therefore section 9 was inserted. It appears to me in this case there was service under the Crown, and that the Crown was an employer, and that this was a case of concurrent contract. If the view of Farwell, L.J., were to prevail it would deprive this unfortunate man of every benefit conferred upon persons in his position. In calculating the scale of compensation to be paid to the respondent it appears to me a sound construction of the Act to include the £6 allowance, and I think that the judgment of the Master of the Rolls and Fletcher Moulton, L.J., was sound.

Lord Robson—I concur.