LIMIT OF £1000.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 70, 23 March 1934, Page 3

LIMIT OF £1000.

MINER'S INJURIES.

CAGE ACCIDENT AT WAIHI.

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT,

In giving judgment yesterday afternoon, Mr. Justice Ostler held that the maximum amount that could be awarded

a miner for injuries received in a mining accident caused by the negligence of a fellow servant was £1000.

In July of last year a number of miners in the Waihi mine were injured through a cage conveying miners up and down the shaft breaking. Among tliam was John Hislop Gordon, who brought a claim for damages under section 295 of the Mining Act, 1926. The case came before a jury at the Warden's Court and the plaintiff was awarded £1500 damages. Mr. H. P. Richmond, for the defendant, the Waihi Gold Mining Company, submitted that the damages under the Workers' Compensation Act compensation were limited to £1000 and tlio warden suspended entering judgment | in order to state a case for the Supreme Court.

Argument was heard bv Mr. Justice Ostler on Wednesday, Mr. P. J. O'Regan appearing for the plaintiff, Gordon, and Mr. Richmond end Mr. West for the Waihi Gold Mining Company.

History of Act. ■ In giving judgment yesterday Mr. Justice Ostler traversed the history of section 295 of the Mining Act, 192(5, and said that in his opinion, in the case of a miner who had been injured, the compensation, a right to which was given by sub-section 1, could only be recovered subject to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922, that is, subject to all its provisions which were not applicable and not excluded by the terms of section 295. "Just as when construing section 334 of the Mining Act, 1891, the Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that a miner injured through the negligence of a fellow worker could not recover more for damages than the limit prescribed in the Eniployeis' Liability Act, 1882," said his Honor, "so I think that in this similar ease he cannot recover more than the limit prescribed by section 07 of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922." His Honor said he could not accept the arguments of Mr. O'Regan, who contended that nothing in the Workers' Compensation Act could alter the provisions of the Mining Act.

Counsel's Contentions. It was not a case of the abrogation of a special provision by implication by the enactment of a later general provision; it was the incorporation of the provisions of an earlier Act to express reference in a later Act. The other main argument was based in the provisions of section 49 of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922, which provided that, "save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, nothing in this Act shall affect any civil liability of an employer or any other person which exists-inde-pendently of this Act." It was contended that in this caso the defendant company had a civil liability under section 295 of the Mining Act, and nothing in the Workers' Compensation Act affected that liability. There were two answers to this contention. The first was that there was no civil liability in this case on defendant company independently of the Workers' Compensation Act, for the liability created by section 295 of the Mining Act was expressly made subject to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. The second answer was that it is expressly provided by the Workers' Compensation Act that no servant shall recover from his employer more than £1000 as damages for an injury caused by the negligence of a fellow employee. For these reasons section 49, in the opinion of his Honor, had no application. His Honor then held that damages were limited to £1000. As the defendant company had been successful in the argument £12 12/ costs were awarded, to bo deducted from the amount of the damages.