PERIOD OF COMPENSATION

Evening Star, Issue 19388, 23 October 1926, Page 5

PERIOD OF COMPENSATION

IHTEP.ESTIKG POINT BEFORE ARBITRATION COURT The Arbitration Court—His Hon, Mr Justice Frazer (president) and Messrs A. L. Monteith and W. Scott (assessors) —sat this morning to deal wfth the compensation case of Joseph Scott, flourmillor (plaintiff), v. Harraway and Sons, Ltd., flour and oatmeal millers (defendant). The dispute concerned the legal bearing of a certain subsection of the Workers’ Compensation Act in respect to the aggregate period for which plaintiff was to receive compensation as the result of the loss of an eye. The plaintiff was injured on June 2d, 1924 and was off work for ten days, foi which he was paid. Then he worked from July, 1924, till February, 1926, when his eye failed. For fifty-seven days ho was again off work, and was subsequently paid for that period. Between April and September of this year ho was back at work, and then lie had to have his eye removed. Mr J. B. Callau appeared for the plaintiff and Mr A. C. Stephens for the defendant. The subsection in dispute stated that the weekly payments should in no case extend over a longer aggregate period than six years. Mr Callau, in the course of argument, pointed out that a recent decision of the court settled the point that, where there was permanent and constructive incapacity, the right to payment did not accrue until the incapacity descended, and then the period was calculated from that date. His Honor .said the trouble seemed to bo over the word “ aggregate.” Was the aggregate a collection of separate periods or did it commence on the first day of the Incapacity? Mr Callau acid the application of arithmetic between tho parties on tho matter of law meant £BO to the plaintiff. Mr Stephens’s contention was that the six years commenced on the date of the incapacity, and included the broken and unbroken periods. Mr Callau argued that the aggregate meant tho adding together of_ the broken periods during which plaintiff was off work. His Honor intimated that the court would consider its decision and give a written judgment. He remarked that it was noteworthy that the court had recently heard a case on practically the same point at issue in Now Plymouth, and that a search failed to find any previous cases in which the same position had been argued.