Green v Britten and Gilson
[1904] 1 K.B. 350(Decision by: Mathew LJ)
Between: Green
And: Britten and Gilson
Judges:
Collins MR
Mathew LJCozens-Hardy LJ
Subject References:
EMPLOYER AND WORKMAN
Compensation
Injury to Workman
Factory
Warehouse
Legislative References:
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37) - s. 7, sub-s. 2
Case References:
Colvine v. Anderson, considered. - (1902) 5 F. 255
Judgment date: 15 December 1903
Decision by:
Mathew LJ
I am of the same opinion. We have a careful statement by the county court judge of the grounds of his decision; but upon the evidence I think the store was used for purposes which make it in law a warehouse within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It appears, both from the evidence and the findings of the judge, that the glass was in the first instance brought from abroad to this arch for the purpose of being polished, and when polished was there stored in large quantities and in heavy packages until required for delivery to customers on being sold by orders given to the respondents' travellers or by customers in the shop. The conclusion of the county court judge was that a retail business was carried on at the shop, and that the store was ancillary to the business of that shop because it was partly used for the storage of goods which were afterwards transferred to the shop for the purpose of delivery - in other words, he treated the store as a shop, a conclusion at which he arrived by the use of the word "ancillary." No doubt there are many cases to which that word can properly be applied, as where the store is subsidiary, subordinate, or appurtenant to the business carried on in the shop; but it is not applicable in the present case, for this store was not merely subsidiary, but was indispensable to the carrying on of the business.
We are, therefore, relieved from the difficulty which the county court judge created for himself by the use of the word "ancillary." I think that his mistake was in treating the store, because it was used in connection with the shop, as being nothing more than a shop, and therefore not a warehouse. Our decision is in entire accordance with Colvine v. Anderson; [F12] this arch was used, not as a shop, but in connection with the wholesale business as a store where goods were kept and delivered out as required for conveyance to purchasers; it is therefore a warehouse, and this appeal must be allowed.