COMPENSATION LIMIT

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 146, 8 July 1937, Page 14

COMPENSATION LIMIT

-Piesa Association.)

Law Reform Act Does Not Operate Retrospectively INTERESTING JUDGMENT

(By Telegraph-

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 clear and unequivocal enactment, Mr Justice^ lleed delivered an interesting judgment in the Supreme Court to-day. The question liis Honour was called upon to decide was whether the Law Reform Act, which came into force on September 18 last year, removed the limitation of £1000 which an injured worker might ciaim as provided under the Workers Compensation Act, 1922. $ The point was argued before his Honour on Tuesday last, when Mr J. J. Sullivan appeared for plaintiff ,Alfred Joseph Dangnall, and Mr J. B. Elliot for defendant, Huddart, Parker, Ltd. The facts were that on June 20, 1935, Dagnall, then employed by del'endant company, was injured owing to the alleged negligence of a fellow-servant. On that date tlie law governing claims at common law for injury caused by the negiigence of a fellow-servant imposed a liniit on such a claim of £1000. That section was repealed by the Law Reform Act, which. came into force on September 18, 1936, and on tMarch 24, 1937, a writ was issued and, a claim made for £2897. In a lengthy ; judgment his .Honour quoted .numerous authorities as setting out principles to show that therq was not the slighfesi indication , that the Law Reform Act was to apply to accidents occurring before the statute came ; into force. ;."Where the .Legisjature had intended to make a provision in the new statute retrospective it had not failed to do so. By the statute in .force when the accident occurrfed, said his Honour, the liability of an employer for (hunages for mjuries suffered in the circumstances claimed was. limited to.£100Q. On that basis the employer .would haye insured his servant and paid t-lie requisite premium, Could it be presumed that Parliament had deliberat^ly imposed an increased liability on the .employer for all accidents where fellow-seryants were at fault that' bad happened for six years before 'tlie' aniehding Act was passed, liability against which he could have no insurable provision, and the resiilt of which" might well inean "his tinancial ruin? "I am of the opinion that the statute is not retrospective and that ihe damages recoverable by plaintiff are limited to ^OCO,'' sajd liis Honour. " Costs and disbursements". were' allowed defendant.