PERSISTENT LITIGATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19831, 29 December 1927, Page 7

PERSISTENT LITIGATION.

SEAMAN CLAIMS £152,000. . CASE REPEATEDLY DISMISSED. - A claim for £152,000 damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act, from the owners of the steamer Sussex, the Federal Steam Navigation Company, was brought before the Bow County Court, London, recently, by Robert Loftus, donkey man. He appeared in person. The accident, for which he received payment under the Act occurred on March 13, 1919, on board the Sussex at Tilbury Dock, his left wrist being fractured and the forearm injured by machinery. The respondents, in their answer to the application, stated that the subject matter of the proceedings was decided by Judge Jackson in the Mayor's and City of London Court, in July, 1922, by Judge Snagge at Bow in October of . the same year, by Judge Crawford at Grays in September and December, 1923, and by Judge Hargreaves at Bow in December, 1925, June and October, 1926, and March and June last, and contended therefore that the matter was res judicata. Alternatively they'denied their liability to pay further compensation under the Act, because the applicant was not now, and had not been at any time since March 23, 1322, in any way incapacitated for work, or if he was suffering incapacity it was. not the result of the accident alleged.

The respondents asked the Judge for an order that no further application -for arbitration be filed by the applicant, or "the matter in any way reinstated, until the whole of the costs of previous applications had been paid by the applicant. The Judge said that, the factsbeing admittedly the same, he would not go into the case. Mr. Rex worthy, solicitor of the Shaping Federation, asked whether there was not a way of stopping Loft us from again bringing these proceedings. The Judge: I know of none, excep'i that you make an application to the Attorney-General. These proceedings by Loftus have been a farce for a very long time. I have.always given costs against him, but it is of no value, because he has not the money to pay with. I went into £ha matter very carefully as to whether I had the power to stop him renewing these proceedings, but came to the conclusion I could not, owing to a little misdrafting of the section of the Act which applies. * Only the AttorneyGeneral's fiat will do it.