RETROSPECTIVE ?

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 154, 1 July 1937, Page 8

RETROSPECTIVE ?

SCOPE OF NEW ACT.

INJURY TO WORKMAN.

PROBLEM FOR THE COURT.

A point of considerable interest to employers and employees, arising out of new legislation passed by the Labour Government, was argued in the Supreme Court this morning before Mr. Justice Reed. The parties concerned were Alfred Joseph Dagnall (Mr. J. J. Sullivan) and Huddart-Parker, Ltd. (Mr. J. B. Elliot).

Mr. Sullivan, for the plaintiff, said Dagnall, a waterside worker, was. on June 20, 1935, employed on the Wanganella, and was a servant of the defendant company. He was struck on the leg by a falling milk can and later part of the leg had to be amputated. At the time the injury took place any claim for damages that Dagnall might bring against the defendant company, providing he could prove negligence, against a fellow-servant, was limited to £1000. However, on September 18, 193 C, the new Government passed an Act called the Law Reform Act, which took away the limit of £1000 damages that might be claimed in a case of the kind under discussion.

Employer and Servant. On March 24, 1937, counsel said, Dagnall instituted proceedings against l | the defendant company, claiming £2897 | damages, taking advantage of the new ' Act. The question the Court was now asked to ds§ide was whether the new 1 Act could be Supplied to,the present case, i Mr. Sullivan submitted that the new , Act was retrospective, and quoted section ' 2, which stated that this section applied to every case where the relationship of ' employer and servant exists, whether the contract of employment is made before or after the ]>assing of the Act. Mr. Sullivan contended that the section quoted had a retrospective effect. If this was not intended a clause would have been added referring to proceedings instituted before the passing of the new Act. Ho quoted authorities in support of his contentions. Dagnall had, and was still receiving compensation. | Effect of Repeal.

Mr. Elliot submitted that the question

was covered l>v section 20 of the Acts Interpretation Act. 1924, which provided that the repeal of an Act shall not > affect anything done or suffered. Counsol contended that section 67 of the I workers' Compensation Act limited the right which might accrue or be established at the date of the accident. It was then open to the employer to tender to the injured workman the sum of £1000, and the workman would have to accept it. If a worker, immediately after an accident, had a right accrued, j then the employer had a right limiting i the right of the -workman. | Mr. Elliot quoted a number of authorities in support of his submissions under the Workers' Compensation Act the employer's liability was limited to £1000, but if the new Act was to apply to accidents which occurred before it was passed, and for which proceedings were brought subsequently, it would bt

wrong, unreasonable and unjust, because an employer had no opportunity of covering, himself by insurance. Under the Workers' Compensation Act an employer kne«v the limit of his liability, but if the new Act was to be retrospective in its effect an employer might be liable for thousands of pounds, and might be ruined. Replying, Mr. Sullivan submitted that the alteration o£ the law was a mere matter of procedure, and therefore the contention that it was not retrospective did not apply. His Honor said he would take time to consider his decision.