MINER'S DAMAGES

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 145, 21 June 1934, Page 19

MINER'S DAMAGES

LIMITED TO £1000

FULL COURT D^QJSION

After hearing legal argument in the case of John Hislop Gordon, quartz miner, Wailii, against the Waihi Gold Mining Co., Ltd., the Full Court decided yesterday afternoon that Gordon's right to damages for injuries arising out of his employment at the mine was limited-to £1000. The question of law for the consideration of the Court was whether the effect of section 67 (3) of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922, is to amend section 295 of the Mining Act, 1926, thereby imposing a £1000 limit on the amount of damages recoverable as for the negligence of a fellow-servant.

Gordon was injured at the company's mine in July of last year, and on a claim, founded on an allegation of negligence against a fellow-servant, ho was awarded. £1500 damages in the Warden's Court at Waihi. The question was then raised whether it was competent for Gordon to recover more than £1000, and on the matter being referred to the Supreme Court at Auckland Mr. Justice Ostler dceided against Goi'don. It was then arranged to have the ease referred to the Full Court.

The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) said that the burden of the argument by appellant's counsel appar: ently was that sub-section 3 of section 295 of the Mining Act, 1926, was" superfluous and meaningless. In his Honour's opinion it was neither the one nor the other. He thought that what subsection 3 meant -was that so much of the Workers Compensation Act of 1922 as was applicable must be read into subsection 3. In subsection 3of Bection 295 such provisions of the Workers Compensation Act, 1922, as were applicable must. be lead into subsection 3. Section 67 of the Workers Compensation Act, 1922/was-applicable in that way, and it was enacted by that section that in a. case of this kind the maximum sum recoverable by way of damages in any one cause of action was £1000. ■■..:.

It had also been suggested during the [course of argument, his Honour continued, that subsection 4 of section 295 jwas meaningless. He could not agree .with that suggestion either. "I agree with the view taken by Mr. Justice i.Ostler," his Honour concluded, "and in my opinion the' appeal must be dismissed." ' ■'■•■ ■■';■■•

Mr. Justice Heed and Mr. Justice Johnston concurred in the views expressed by the Chief Justice.

The appeal was dismissed with 25 guineas costs.

Mr. P. J. O'Began, Wellington, appeared for tlie appellant, and Mr. H. P. Richmond and Mr. F. L. D. West, both of Auckland, for the company.