DELAYED ACTION

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 18, 21 July 1932, Page 7

DELAYED ACTION

COMPENSATION CLAIM

APPEAL COURT'S DECISION

Eesorvod judgment was delivered by the Court of Appeal yesterday in a case stated for the opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Trazcr, the Judge of the Arbitration Court. The question submitted for the Court's consideration was whether tho failure of tho plaintiff, John James Wilson, of Wellington, waterside worker, in. the circumstances disclosed by the case, to commence his action for conpensation within six months from the date of the last payment of compensation to him was excusable as being "occasioned by mistake ... or by any other reasonable, cause" within the meaning of subsection (4) of section 27 of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922. The defendant was Messrs. Gannaway and Co., Ltd., of Wellington, stevedores. The plaintiff had been paid compensation by the defendant at the rate o£ £3 18s 3d a -week from sth May, 1930, when he was injured, on the steamer Golden Cross, up to 11th July, 1930. He signed an agreement^ for the final settlement of compensation, but on Ist September, 1931, he 'sought to reopen the' question of compensation with the The reasbn given by the plaintiff for his failure to reopon the matter until after'the expiration of the statutory limitation of six months, was due to his reliance upon the opinion of the insurance company's doctor and to the fact that he had given the release which he, relyingupon the opinion expressed by the solicitor who witnessed his signature, Relieved and understood barred any further claim. . ■'■ .

In accordance .with a majority decision of the Court it was decided to answer the question in the form set out in the judgment of the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers). The answer was as follows: —''■ "Whether or not the plaintiff's failure to commence action within six months from the 27th June,' 1930, ib excusable depends upon tho instructions given to the solicitor by the insurance company's clerk and/or the plaintiff. If the solicitor was definitely instructed that he was to advise the plaintiff independently, then tho answer to tho question should be in the negative. If, however, he was not definitely so instructed, and if he was led to believe by tho insurance company s representative that he was acting simply for the insurance company, or if such representative left him in doubt as to which party he was^ acting for, then the question should be answered in the affirmative." The majority of the Court also held that if eventually the question was answered in the affirmative, then tho plaintiff, was entitled to compensation between 27th Junei «30, and Ist September, 1931.:. • ,