QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 235, 5 October 1927, Page 8

QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE.

SMAIX CLAIMS NOT ENCOURAGED. ARBITRATION COURT DISCUSSION. The practice of bringing small compensation cases in the Arbitration Court, in preference to settling them in the Magistrate's Court, was briefly referred to this morning by Mr. Justice Frazcr, when considering a claim for £3 8/6. brought by James Brown, waterside worker, against Leonard and Dingley, Limited, stevedores. The claim, which was in respect to an injury to the forefinger of claimant's right hand, sustained while in *the employ of the defendants, was settled, and it remained only for the costs to be assessed. Mr. J. J. Sullivan, counsel for claimant, said the company had met the claim at the last moment only, and had merely paid in one guinea costs. In seeking further costs, counsel pointed out that the insurance company interested in the action had invited the services of a writ, instead of a summons in the lower court. Mr. H. P. Richmond, for the defendants, said there was no question of principle involved. The case was petty, and the company had paid thp amount claimed into Court, rather than go to the expense of calling medical evidence. He suggested the Court should be spared the trouble of investigating little £2 and £3 claims, dependent purely upon fact and not law. His Honor: A case can only go to the magistrate with the consent of both parties. Mr. Hammond: It is optional. His Honor: It looks like a steam hammer to crack a walnut. I know the magistrate's decision is not often availed of. The Court, he added, did not want to encourage small claims coming along, but the thing he was afraid of was a man endeavouring to get a larger sum than that to which he was entitled by threatening hi# employer. On the other hand, no one wanted to prevent a man from bringing his claim if it was a just one. In the present case the insurance company had settled up, probably because it was the cheapest' course, but it had given away a question of principle. In view of the fact that a little more preparation had been involved in the case than for an ordinary summons in the Magistrate's Court, £2 2/ costs were allowed.