Hoddinott v Newton Chambers & Co Ltd
[1901] A.C. 49(Judgment by: Lord Davey)
Between:Mary Jane Hoddinott (pauper) - Appellant
And: Newton Chambers & Co Ltd - Respondent
Judges:
Lord MacNaghten
Lord Morris
Lord Shand
Lord DaveyLord 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
Judgment by:
Lord Davey
My Lords, I agree with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, and I only desire to add two observations of my own.
This case is of course not free from difficulty, but I have come to a clear opinion that the addition of these iron stays was "construction" within the meaning of the Act. The Master of the Rolls says it was not construction, because the building was already completed. I take leave to say that the learned judge assumes the whole point in controversy. No doubt it was intended to be completed, and the parties thought it was completed when the omnibus company took possession. But the experience of a few months shewed that something more was needed to adapt it to the purpose for which it was intended, or, in other words, that it was not in fact complete; and the addition of these iron stays was required to complete the construction. It is none the less construction because it was an addition made at a later date or, because the addition was not contemplated or was omitted in the original specification, and the necessity for it was not then apparent.
The second observation is as to the construction put by Collins L.J. on the words of the Act. The learned Lord Justice says that the scaffolding must bear some relation to the height of the building, and be such a scaffolding as would be required to construct or repair a building of that height. I think it very likely that the draftsman had something of that kind in his mind, but I can only interpret the Act by the language which he has used. The Lord Justice further says that the requirement of a building of a certain height and of a scaffolding was intended to fix the standard of danger to the workmen. That would be all very well if the compensation was confined to accidents arising out of or in some way connected with the height of the building or the scaffolding. But that is not so. By the 7th section the Act is made applicable to any employment "in or about any building," & c., without any qualification. A carpenter, for example, employed on the ground-floor in preparing and putting in the woodwork, the joists, doors, and window-frames, would be within the Act though he never went near the scaffold.
My Lords, I will not detain you further. I have had the opportunity of seeing the judgment about to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Brampton. He has gone very fully into the question whether the platform in question was scaffolding within the meaning of the Act. I will not anticipate what he will read, but only say that I entirely agree with his reasoning. I express my concurrence in the motion proposed by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack.