Hoddinott v Newton Chambers & Co Ltd
[1901] A.C. 49(Decision by: Lord Morris)
Between:Mary Jane Hoddinott (pauper) - Appellant
And: Newton Chambers & Co Ltd - Respondent
Judges:
Lord MacNaghten
Lord MorrisLord Shand
Lord Davey
Lord Brampton
Lord Lindley
Subject References:
EMPLOYER AND WORKMAN
COMPENSATION
Height of Building
Construction or Repair
Scaffolding
Legislative References:
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (c. 37) - s. 7, sub-s. 1
Judgment date: 10 December 1900
Decision by:
Lord Morris
My Lords, I agree in the judgment of my noble and learned friend in the chair, and in the reasons he has given.
That the building exceeded thirty feet in height and had some operations performed on it by means of scaffolding are questions of fact mainly, and were found in the affirmative by the county court judge, and not dissented from by the majority of the Court of Appeal. Nothing, in my opinion, remains but the question, Was the operation being performed on the building at the time of the accident either constructing or repairing the building? In my opinion, when you realize what the entity called the building is, all operations on it must be either constructing or repairing or demolishing - alteration in its construction is, in my opinion, constructing. I can find no reference in the statute to what is called a completed building in the judgment of A. L. Smith L.J.
In my opinion, whether completed or not completed, if work of the nature of construction goes on, that is constructing, and if work in the nature of repair, that is repairing, and there is no room for any third operation of so-called alteration, as distinct from constructing or repairing.