LAW NOT RETROSPECTIVE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19371, 8 July 1937, Page 11

LAW NOT RETROSPECTIVE

COMPENSATION LIMITS SUPREME COURT DECISION RESTRICTION ON DA RACES (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, last night. Holding that neither the right of the employee nor the obligation of the 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 today. The question that His Honour was called upon to decide was whether the Law Reform Act, which came into force on September 18 of last year, removed the limitation of £IOOO which an injured worker might claim as provided under the Workers Compensation Act, 1922. The point was argued before Ilis Honour on Tuesday last when Mr. .1. .1. Sullivan appeared for the plaintiff, Alfred Joseph Dagnall, and Mr. .1. B. Talbot for the defendant. Huddart Parker. Limited. The facts were that on June 20, 1935, Dagnall, who was then employed .by. .the,, defendant. company,. was. injured owing to 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' a * limit on such a claim of £IOOO. That section was repealed by the Law Reform Act which came into force on September 18, 1930, and on March 24, 1937, a writ was issued and a claim made for £2897. Would Mean Financial Ruin

In a lengthy judgment, His Honour quoted numerous authorities as setting out principles to show that there was not the slightest indication that the Law Reform Act was to apply to accidents occurring before the statute came into force. Where the Legislature had intended to make provision in a iffew 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 £IOOO. On that basis the employer would hae insured his servant, and paid the requisite premium. “Could it be,” asked His Honour, “presumed that Parliament had deliberately imposed an increased liability on the 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 Ilis Honour. , * Costs and disbursements were allowed to the defendant.