COMPENSATION AWARDED

Evening Star, Issue 19276, 15 June 1926, Page 5

COMPENSATION AWARDED

CUIK FOR DAMAGES FAILS His Honor Mr Justice Sim this morning gave judgment in the case of William John Ivina v. The Union Steam Ship Company, Ltd., a claim for £I,OOO for injuries received while employed by the defendant company. The case was hoard by a special jury, which answered questions in a manner that amounted to a decision in favor of defendants. Subsequently the question of compensation was argued before His Honor byMr F. B. Adams (for King) and Mr J. B. Callan (for defendants). His Honor said that on the findings of the jury the defendant was entitled to judgment on the plaintiff’s claim to recover damages at common law. The only question now in dispute between the parties was as to the amount of compensation to be awarded to the plaintiff under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Act in force when the plaintiff sustained his injuries was that of 1908, and the compensation had to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of that Act. He thought the plaintiff’s period of continuous total incapacity ought to be treated as having coma to an end on the date on which lie obtained employment at the Exhibition—namely, August 27, 1925. That would make the balance payable for this period £64 5s lOd, as shown in Mr Callan’s calculation.

With regard to the compensation for partial incapacity after that date, it was impossible to deal with the caso under the second schedule in the way suggested by Mr Adams. Although the plaintiff’s forefinger was quite useless and would have to be removed, the plaintiff still had it; and had not suffered a loss of it within the meaning of the second schedule. The caso had to be dealt with, therefore, as being outside that schedule. Treating the case as coming within the second schedule, Mr Adams wdrked out the amount to be paid for partial incapacity at £BO 18s Bd. Dealing with the case as being outside the second schedule, Mr Callan made the amount £7l 2s 2d. Mr Adams presented an alternative calculation by which he made the amount £l2B 9s 2d. His Honor was not satisfied that the basis of this calculation was sound, and he preferred that suggested by Mr Callan. He adopted that basis, and fixed the further compensation to he paid to the plaintiff at £135 Bs, which included the £64 5s iOd already- mentioned. From this had to be deducted the costs of the action, which are allowed on the highest scale as on a claim for £I,OOO, with disbursements for fees of court to be ascertained by the Registrar. As the jury found against the defendant on the first issue there would not be any- allowance for witnesses’ expenses or for the second day of the trial. The plaintiff was allowed a sum of £7 7s for costs on his claim for compensation, and this amount was to bo deducted from the costs allowed to the defendant. When the_ exact amount to bo paid to the plaintiff had been ascertained a certificate could be drawn up, if necessary, under sub-section 3 of section 46 of the Act of 1908.