Great Western Railway Company v Helps
[1918] A.C. 141(Judgment by: Lord Parmoor)
Between: Great Western Railway Company - Appellant
And: Helps - Respondent
Judges:
Lord Dunedin
Lord Atkinson
Lord Parker of Waddington
Lord Sumner
Lord Parmoor
Subject References:
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
Assessment
Earnings of Railway Porter
Tips
Legislative References:
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58) - Sched. I., par. 1 (b)
Case References:
Penn v. Spiers & Pond, Ld. approved - [1908] 1 K. B. 766
Judgment date: 30 November 1917
Judgment by:
Lord Parmoor
My Lords, I think that the true effect of Mr Schiller's argument would be to limit earnings to the amount which an employee is entitled to claim under or in consequence of his contract of service. I use those two words because Mr. Schiller used them. I think that this construction of the Workmen's Compensation Act is not accurate, and that the word "earnings" is not so limited in its meaning. If it is not so limited, then the question arises whether notorious tips, such as are received by a railway porter, should be taken into account. It was within the competence of the arbitrator to find that the tips in question were earned by the applicant in his employment, and that appears to me to be a finding which settles the matter in this case.
The history of these tips points in the same direction. It is quite accurately stated by the Master of the Rolls in his judgment in these words:
"At one time, and for a good many years, the Great Western Railway Company had a rule which said that no gratuity is allowed to be taken from passengers or other persons by any servant of the company. It was found that that rule was habitually disregarded; it was a mere waste of paper; and in 1913 new rules were passed. The old one was abolished, and there is this one now: that no servant of the company is allowed to solicit gratuities from passengers or other persons."
My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the caution expressed by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, that the decision in this case is applicable to tips which are notorious and well known, and not to tips which are casual and sporadic and trivial in amount.
Order of the Court of Appeal affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs.
Lords' Journals, November 30, 1917.
- Solicitor for appellants: L. B. Page.
- Solicitors for respondent: Church, Adams, Prior & Balmer, for Arthur E. Withy, Bath.