SUPREME COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 8 July 1937, Page 6

SUPREME COURT

IMPORTANT DECISION. <Pei Press Association—Copyright). . AUCKLAND, July 7. Holding that neither the right of an employee nor the obligation of an employer could be impaired by subsequent legislation, unless by a clear and unequivocal enactment, Mr Justice Reed delivered an interesting judgment, in the Supreme Court. The question the- Court, was called oh to decide was whether, the Law Reform Act ; which- came into force on September IS of last year, removed tbe limitation of £IOOO which an injured worker might claim, as provided under the Workers Compensation Act, 1922. The point was argued before his Honour ou I’uesday last, when Mr J, J. Sullivan appeared for the plaintiff, Alfred Joseph Dagnall, and Mr J. B. Elliot for the" defendant, Huddart, 'Parker, Ltd. The facts were that on June 20, 1935, Dagnall, then employed by tlve ; defendant company, was injured through the alleged negligence of a fellow servant. On that date the law governing claims at common law for injury caused by the negligence of a fellow servant imposed af limit on such a-claim of £IOOO. That section was repealed by the Law Reform Act, which came into force on September 18, 1936, and on. March 24, 1937, a writ was issued and a claim made lor £2897.

In a long judgment his Honour quoted numerbus authorities as'setting out principles to show that there was not the slightest indication that tlio Law Reform Act was to apply to accidents occurring before the statute came into, force. Where the legislature had intended To make a provision in a new statute retrospective, it had not failed to do so.

*‘By the statute in force when the accident occurred,” said his Honour, “the liability of an employer for damages for injuries suffered in the circumstances claimed was limited to £1000.” On that basis, an employer would have insured his servant, and paid the requisite premium. Could -it De presumed that Parliament had deliberately imposed an increased liability on an employer for all accidents where fellow servants were at fault that had happened for six years before the amending act was■ passed, . a liability against which he could have no insurance provision, and the result of which might well mean his, financial ruin. “I am of opinion that the statute is not retrospective, and that the damages recoverable by the plaintiff ’ are limited to £1000,” said kis Honour. Costs and disbursements were allowed defendant.