S.A.M.O.S Ltd v Tyrell

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: St. Bernard, J.
• Judgment Date: 27 July 1967
• Neutral Citation: KN 1967 HC 1
• Docket Number: No. 5 of 1965
• Date: 27 July 1967

High Court

St. Bernard, J. Glasgow, J.

No. 5 of 1965

S.A.M.O.S LTD.

and

Tyrell

Appearances:

F. E. Kelsick for appellant.

F. C. Adams for respondent.

Workmen's compensation - Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, Cap. 354 — Claims — Basis of award.

Facts: This was an appeal against an award made by a magistrate sitting as Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Ord. Cap. 354. As employee of the appellant company died under circumstances, which entitled his defendants to compensation under the ordinance. Whether the plaintiff's mother as the only defendant was entitled to the full award.

Held: Dismissing the appeal, that the court is empowered under section 15(1) of the Ord. to apportion among all or any of the defendants of a workman the full amount of compensation required to be paid under section 8(1) in such proportion as it thinks fit.

St. Bernard, J.

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY This is an appeal against an award made by the magistrate sitting as Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, Chapter 354 of the Revised Laws of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla.

2 Anderson Walters, a former employee of the appellant, died on the 25th August 1960, under circumstances, which entitled his dependants to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, hereinafter called the Ordinance. The appellant paid into court the sum of two thousand nine hundred and ten dollars and sixty cents, which represented the maximum amount of compensation to which his dependants would be entitled under section 8 of the Ordinance. At the inquiry for the determination of claims payable under the Ordinance, the Commissioner found the respondent, mother of the deceased, a partial dependant and the only dependant of the deceased. The Commissioner awarded the whole sum paid into court to the respondent, Tyrell.

3 The contention of counsel for the appellant is that the Commissioner was wrong in law in holding that because the respondent was the only dependant she was entitled to the full into court without assessing the injury suffered by her as a result of the workman's death. He cited the case of Hodgson v. West Stanley Colliery [1910] A.C. 229. In that case Lord Loreburn, L.C. at page 233 stated:

“It would be an erroneous view to hold that, because the widow was only partially dependent upon the husband's earnings, therefore she cannot receive the full sum of £300 in respect of his death....