The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946 / with general introduction and annotations by N.P. Shannon and Douglas Potter.

  • United Kingdom
Date:
1946
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946 / with general introduction and annotations by N.P. Shannon and Douglas Potter. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    198/252 (page 188)
    NO. 35.—NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) sense employers. In the latter case as dealt with in section 5 (1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1925, however ; Willis 207 ; the expression used is ‘“‘ deemed to be ” (g) Provisions of this Act relating to contributions.—These are contained in Part I, sections 2-5, and in Part V, sections 65-72, ante. (kh) Insured persons working temporarily under immediate employer. — The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1925, by section 5 (1), Willis 207, provided that where the services of a workman were temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the workmen had entered into a contract of service or appren- ticeship, the latter should, for the purposes of that Act, be deemed to continue to be the employer of the workman whilst he was working for that other person. Some cases decided on this point will be found collected in Willis at pp. 209-210. The wording * of the present provision is wider and covers all cases where the insured person’s employer sends him to work under the immediate direction of another. Many reported cases have been fought on this point, usually on the question—who was liable as master for his servant’s negligence ? For example, in Jones v. Scullard, [1898] 2 Q.B. 565 ; 34 Digest 22, 25; the defendant owned a brougham, horses and harness which he kept at a livery stable. The keeper of the stable used to supply the defendant with one of his own men to drive the brougham. The brougham, with one of the defendant’s horses, driven by a man who had driven the defendant continuously for six weeks and who was wearing a suit of livery supplied by the defendant, did damage, owing to the driver’s negligence. It was held that there was evidence on which a jury might find that the driver was at the time acting as the servant of the defendant. Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, C.J., said, at p. 573, that it was “‘ quite clear that a man may, be the general servant of one person, and yet at the same time be the servant of another in relation to a particular matter, and . . . that the important element, whereby to determine whether he is the servant of the one person or of the other in relation to the particular business on which he was engaged, is which of the two persons had the control of him in the conduct of that business ’’. Donovan v. Laing, Wharton and Down Con- struction Syndicate, [1893] 1 O.B. 629, C.A.; 34 Digest 26, 49; is also often cited on this point. The defendants contracted to lend to a firm who were unloading a ship at their wharf a crane with a man in charge of it. He took his directions from the firm or their servants, one of whom was the plaintiff, who was injured by the crane driver’s negligence. It was held that the crane driver remained the general servant of the defendants, yet, as they had parted with the power of controlling him with regard to the matter on which he was engaged, they were not liable for his negligence when so employed. (¢) Deduction of tonudbutione by permanent. employer.—tThe right of the employer to deduct the insured person’s contribution from his wages is derived from section 5 (2), ante. The employer may not deduct his own contribution (section 4, ante). (k) Recovery of contributions from insured person by immediate employer. —dAs to the right of the employer to recover contributions paid or to be paid by him on behalf of the insured person, see section 5 (1) and (3), ante. Additional rights to benefit 81. Accidents in course of illegal employment, etc.—(1) Where a Claim for benefit is made under this Act (a) in respect of any accident or of any prescribed disease or injury (8), or an application is made thereunder for a declaration that any accident was an industrial accident, or for.a corres- ponding declaration as to any prescribed disease or injury (c), the Minister may direct (d) that for the purposes of this Act the relevant employment shall, in relation to that accident, disease or injury, be treated as having been insurable employment (e), notwithstanding that, by reason of a contra- vention of or non-compliance with some provision contained in or having effect under any enactment passed for the protection of employed persons or of any class of employed persons (f), the contract purporting to govern the employment was void or the employed person was not lawfully employed therein at the time when or in the place where the accident happened or the disease or injury was contracted or received (g). (2) In this section the expression ‘‘ relevant employment ”’ means, in relation to an accident, the employment out of and in the course of which the accident arises and, in relation to a prescribed disease or injury, the employment to the nature of which the disease or injury is due (h). NOTES General effect of section.—This section and sections 82 and 83, post, give additional rights to benefit. This section gives the Minister power to direct that the relevant employment in the case of an accident, disease or injury be treated as having been insurable employment, although the contract was for some reason void or illegal.