clr/1966/1966_1_215.pdf

(1)The test is whether proviso a "reasonable -In which case the question cases reason­ Reasonable cause" the statute for the six months delay or failure blished must accident— where the delay was occasioned by mistake cause" the Cap. 188 —Proceedings within six months from the date of the in instituting No. 4542). within has been esta­ whether further delay in making a claim /· <>/' is not reasonable does not arise. Notice of accident the accident Whether injury complained of resulted which occurred in the respondents Issue remittal to the trial Court Sections •• iH8 (supra) 1'hc Courts of Justice Republic Practice No. 14 of l % 0 ) section -Appeal of primurv Findings facts of fact Inferences from employment— 14 and 15 nf Cap. Law. I*)ii0 {Law of the Court Findings 25

(3). by the trial front primary facts as found by the trial Court - Fhc Supreme Court is not bound by any deter­ minations on ipustions of fact made bv the trial it has p<>wer to review inferences Appeal And although the Supreme Court would be slow to reverse the findings made by the trial Courts, Courts as a Court of primary though it has done so in proper // would be prepared to form an independent opinion proper conclusion of fact to he drawn from a finding facts--The Findings Courts of Justice Law. of fact—Primary from--Powers -And the whole evidence and draw its own cases— upon the of primary I960, section 25

(3)supra. facts - Inferences Court to be drawn of This is ;in appc;il by Ihe a p p l i c a n t - w o r k man f r o m the Sec under Practice above. sitting there- as a Court Appeal of the. Supreme of facts · dismissal by Ihe Irial C m u l o f his a p p l i c a t i o n f o r e n m p e n - 215 1966 Jan 27, Mar 9, June, 10 sation under the Workmen s Compensation Law C a p 188 on a c c o u n t of the delay on the part of the workman to file his alorcsiiid application Ihis application was hied m June 1961, whereas the alleged accident causing the injury, for CHARALAMBOS which compensation was sought occurred some lime in 1949 DROUSIOTIS (No 2) υ Section Cap I HI- CYPRUS 14 ( I ) ol the 188 W o r k m e n ' s Compensation Law, provides ASBESTOS ' ( I ) Piocccdings toi the recoveiy under this Law ( of MINFS L T D compensation loi an injury shall not be maintainable un­ less notice of the a c u d e n t has been given and the application (or compensation with respect to unless such accident has been made within six months from the occurrence ol the accident causing the injury Provided or. that (b) the laihire to make an application within (a) the p e n o d above specified shall not be a bar to the main­ tenance ot such proceedings if it is found that the failure was occasioned by mistake or other reasonable tause " , The Supreme C o u i l in allowing the appeal, held that on the primary l a d s as found by the trial C o u i t "reason­ able cause within the statute (mpra) lor the six m o n t h s ' delay has been cslabli.hed, the question of whether the further delay in making the claim was o r was not "reason­ able " being immaterial Caws refer ted Lmkte v. to Metry

(1915)8 Β W C C 447, Kinq ν Port of London Authority

(1919)H L 12 Β W C C 260, ρ 267, per Lord Birkenhead L C , fftlfntan ν London, Brighton and South Coast Railway 12 Β W C C 323,

(1919)Lmg/ey ν /homas Firth and Sons Ltd

(1920)Β W C C 367. Shotts iron Co.. Ltd v. Fordyce

(1930)23 Β W C C Stenntng ν Southern Railway Harries v. James Howden ΕR Co.

(1937)30 Β W C C and Co. Land Ltd, 34 at p. 38 216 73; 430, [1939] 3 All Appeal. Appeal auainst the judgment of the District Court of Limassol (Loi/.ou IM).C. & Malachtos D.J.). dated the 28th August, 1965 (Application No. 10/61) whereby applicant's application for compensation under the Workmen's Com­ pensation Law, Cap. 188 was dismissed. 1966 Jan. 27, Mar. 9, June, 10 CHARAI.AMBOS DROUSIOTIS (No. 2) i>. Chryssis Demetriades. for the appellant. THE CYPRUS ASBESTOS Μ. M. ilourv, for the respondents. MINES L T D . Cur. adv. nth. ΖϋκΐΛ, P. : The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Joscphidcs, J. Jusi I'liini.s. .

1. : This is an appeal by a workman from the dismissal ol" his application for compensation under the Woikmen's Compensation Law, Cap.
2. On the 9ih March, I960, we delivered a reserved judgment* whereby we held thai the proceedings in the present case were not statute barred and we then heard argument on the remaining grounds of appeal and cross-appeal, namely : (iroittnl of Yppatl : " The Court was wrong in law and/or in fact in !u»!Him» Mint there \\w>not sufficient leasonablo r;»ii':c within the meaning of the I.HA·, during the first M\ months after the accident, lor appellant not to file an application for compensation within that period " . Cross-Appeal: " T h a i the finding of fact of the trial Court that the respondents' foreman took notice of the acci­ dent should be set aside " . Two other grounds of the cross-appeal were abandoned but the respondents' counsel supported· the finding of the trial Court that the appellant's failure to make his applica­ tion to the Court within the statutory period of six months from the occurrence of the accident was not occasioned by a reasonable cause. The statutory provisions applicable to the present case are sections 1Ί and 15 of Mie Workmen's Compensation Law, Cap.
3. Section 14

(1)and

(2)read as follows : lt 14

(1)Proceedings for the recovery under this Law of compensation for an injury shall not be maintainable * Reported in this vol. at p. 136mile. 217 1966 Jan. 27, Mar. 9, June, 10 CHARALAMBOS DROUSIOTIS (No. 2) i>. Τιικ CYPRUS Asmsιos unless notice of the accident has been given by or on behalf of the workman as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and before the workman has volun­ tarily left Ihe employment in which he was injured, and unless the application for compensation with respect to such accident has been made within six months from the occurrence of the accident causing the injury or, in the case of death within six months from the time of death : MINES LTD. Provided that— (

1. a)the want ol", or any defect or inaccuracy in, such notice shall not be a bar to the maintenance of such proceedings if the employer is proved to have had knowledge of the accident from any other source at or about the lime of the accident or if it is found in the proceedings for settling the claim that the employer is not, or would not, if a notice or an amended notice were then given and the hearing postponed, be prejudiced in his defence by the want, defect or inaccuracy, or that such want, defect or inaccuracy was occasioned by mistake or other rea­ sonable cause ; (
2. b)the failure to make an application within the period above specified shall not be a bar to the maintenance of such proceedings if it is found that the failure was occasioned by mistake or other reasonable cause.

(2)Notice in respect of an injury under this Law may be given either in writing or orally to the employer (or if there is nunc than one employer to one of such emplo­ yers) or to any foreman or other official under whose supervision the workman is employed, or to any person designated for the purpose by the employer, and shall give the name and address of the person injured, and shall state in ordinary language the cause of the injury and the date at which the accident happened". Section 15

(3)(d) reads as follows : "

(3)The want of, or any defect or inaccuracy in, the noticeof an accidentrequired by the last precedingsection of this Law shall not be a bar to the maintenanceof proceed­ ings for the recovery of compensation under this Law 218 where the employer is the owner o f a mine or quarry or the occupier o f a factory or workshop- 1966 Jan. 27, Mar. 9, June, 10 CHVRALAMBOS . ( d ) if the injury has been treated in an ambulance room al the mine, quarry, factory or workshop \ DROUSIOTIS (No. 2) η The workman gave evidence before the trial Court and called three witnesses in support ol" his case as regards the occurrence <^\' the accident and his treatment in the respoiv dent company's hospital _iu 1949 and subsequently. The respondent company did not call any oral evidence so that the 'voi k m a n \ e\ idenee icmaiued uncontradicted Ί hree medical reports and some othei records o f the company were put in by consent, and the fact o f the woikman's admission to the company's liospiial for 10 days in 1952 was admitted by the company. It was further stated that the hospital κ c o r d s o f the respondent company for 1949 could not he traced .MUI that Μκ medical reports produced represented the true condition o\' the applicant al the lime Hie lolUt'Miig statement of L i d s is taken from the j u d g ­ ment which we delivered on the 9th M a n ' 66, on the ques­ tion whcthei these pi'occcdines were st ..-.;ie barred Ihe following were Ihe tacts y ven in evidence on be­ half o f ihe workman before the rial Court. In June οι July 1949 while he was employed by Ihe respondent com­ pany as labouicr he was i n w ^ Ί in an accident in the c o u i s e . o f his employment a; . .esult o f which he was injured. Ihe accident oecui d· while he wa> engaged in carrying a heavy object together with three othei la­ bourers , one o f the three lost his balance and fell and, as a result, part o f a waggon, which was very hea\\. fell on the workman and hit him on the spine. One oi~ the persons present al the lime was the foreman of"the res­ pondent company who sent him to the company's hospi­ tal where lie was attended by the doctor and was given two injections on Ihe back ; and he was put on sick leave for 4 days The doctor instructed him to do light w o r k , he said, and as the foreman knew about it he would not give him heavy work. l ; o r the next three years he used to visit Ihe doctor periodically because he was feeling pain but, nevertheless, he continued to w o r k without a break receiving the same wages. 219 T H L CYPRUS , 1 ASBFSTOS MINFS LTO. 1966 Jan. 27, Mar 9, lime, 10 ( H A R M AMBOS In 1952 he was referred by the respondent company to Di Spyros Pavhdes, an X-ray specialist, for exami­ nation of the lumbar spine Dr. Pavlides's report, dated the 14th June, 1952, was put in evidence by consent and leads as follows (Exhibit 1) DROliSIOTIS (No :>) II Till ( M'KU!, ASBISTOS MiNrs L T D . T h e upper anlcrioi surface of the second lumbar vertebra appears depressed, indicating an old-standing crush injury Apart from this there is osteoarthritis of the fourth lumbar vertebra The a-ρ film shows a left convex scoliosis of the lumbar spine' ll is the workman's \cision that after the X-ray examina­ tion he went back to hospital and he was given 30 or 35 days' leave, out of which he was detained in hospital for 10 οι 15 days In fact it is admitted by the le^pondent com­ pany that he was admitted to the company's hospital on the 11th June, 19r>2 and discharged on the 21st June, I95-*, that is to say, he was m hospital foi 10 days, and th.it the hospital patient's iccord shows that the diagnosis was 'ailhiitis defoimas' Another two medical repoits were put in by consent, the one is dated 27lh March, lL)r)8 (exhibit 5) and it is signed by (he company's chief medical offfcei It reads as follows ' I he M a n a g e i , The Asbestos Mines Ltd , Amiandos Dear Sn, Πιι-. is to ceitily that ( haialambos Dtoushiotis, No 455 is not fit for manual work due to an old deformity ol his spine'. Ihe second medical repoit is dated at Amiandos on the 2nd July, 1958 (exhibit 4) and it is signed by Dr Ktrwan The report ιcads as follows ' Re Charalambos Dioushiotis No. 455. Stands with tight side of pelvis htghet than left with mild compensating seoltosis-erector spinal in spasm and all movements limited by pain referred to L-S region wheie thcie is considerable tenderness. No gross abnoimality of S I . joint obvious but symphysis dcfmitcl\ out of alignment 220 X-tays show that thcie has been an upwaul rotation o f left side o f pelvis with slip in symphysis pubis ;md dislocation o f S.I. j o i n t - latter injury extends into pe­ dicle and terminal o f 5ih L.V., the transverse process o f which is sacraliscd. This man has a very definite disability and is unfit for heavy manual labour or work o f any kind necessitating lifting and or stooping". On the 15th November, 1958, the workman was discharged from the semce o f the company and was paid his gratuity amounting l> CI 50.920 mils, bul he d i d not institute the present proceed'iigs mini June 1961. |n Ηκ; particulars o f his application lb ι compensation the workman stales that his incapacity for work is ' total incapacity ' and he claims f.SOO compensa­ tion, ihe m a u i m m i provided under the t aw. He was employed • by the respondent company continuously from 19'ϊ.ϊ to 1958, e\cepi d i n i n g the war period 1941 to 1945 when he wa;» seising in the Λrn 13 . The icasnns given by the w o i k m a n in his evidence for his lailuie to apply to Court within the first six months ufioi the acudenl as pio\ided tinder section 14

(1)o f the Woikmen's Compensation Law, Cap 188, were, (t/)thai h: was kept al work bv the lOMiondenl company and paid hi- wages in f u l l ; (/>) that he ihoughi thai he would become ν j l l and that, although he fell pain during ihe first si\ m o r lis, lie was under Irealmem and thd not know what he had; nd (<) that he though' uie respondent company, would keep h .11 in their employment. The ti ial Com t stated' in the1 -augment that they were satisfied from the cudence beh J them thai the woil.niau " w a s at Ihe lime a piece woi ki and therefore a ' w o i k m a n ' within the meaning o f the Law and that the accident described did occur out o f and in the coiuse o f his employment with the respondents and that he was al the lime treated in the respondents hospital. According to his evidence he c o n t i ­ nued in his employment as a quarry contractor or piece worker al least until the end οΓ 1951 and that after his treat­ ment in hospital some time in 1952 following the X-ra\ by Dr. Pavlides, he was given light work and paid full wages'"'. The Court then went on to consider the legal defences raised by the respondent company- but there is no f i n d i n g in their judgment whether or not the workman's injury complained o f in his application l o Court in 1961 resulted f r o m ihe acci­ dent which occurred in 1949. 221 1966 Jan. 27, M a i . 9, June, 10 CHARALAMBOS DROUSIOTIS . (No. 2) a. THE C^HKL;»' λ " ASBESTOS 't y. MI.NFS.LTO.*. 1966 M"· 9 , " IQ — IIAH.M.AMBMS DKMUSIOTIS CNo 2) ,,. Imi I'-WKI'S Asmsros M , s r s ' Πϊ· O n the question whether the workman gave notice o f the accident under the provisions o f section 14 o f the Law the 'rial Court ruled as follows : " It is clear to us from the evidence that the respondents' foreman took notice of the accij c n t i m m c ( j i a l c | y a f t c r j j s occurrence and as we said earlier o n t n : i t l , ,. , , • . • ' i e a PP'icant was treated on the'same day in their hospital. In view of the above and in ihe light o f the provisions o f section 14

(2)and 15

(3)(d) we are o f opinion that ,| l c requirements o f the Law as to notice must be deemed to have been satisfied ". Having heard learned counsel on this point we are o f the view thai this finding o f the trial Court is amply supported by the evidence and the cross-appeal must, accordingly, fail. W i t h regard to ihe question o f "reasonable cause", the trial Court found thai the workman's failure lo apply within the statutory period o f six months was not occasioned by a reasonable cause, which is one o f the exemptions provided in section 14 o f ihe Law. In reaching that conclusion the (rial Court were o f opinion that it must have been quite clear to the w o r k m a n thai there was something wrong with him which was not trivial, as he had said more than once thai dur­ ing the first six months he fell pain in his back which necessi­ tated repealed visits lo the doctor ; that even if the precise nature o f his injury was nol known to him it could not be said that he had any reason io believe thai the injury could have been trivial ; that the circumstances o f the case did not justify the conclusion that either the respondent .company knew or ought l o have known that the workman intended to seek compensation or thai ihcy led him lo form the belief that he would receive compensation in any f o r m without mak­ ing an application therefor ; and that i l was not clear to the Court f r o m the evidence that the workman received any favour at all f r o m his employers d u r i n g the first six months. Section 14

(1)( b ) of our Workmen's Compensation Law, Cap. 188, which is applicable to this case, reproduces substan­ tially the provisions of seelion 2

(1)(b) o f the English W o r k ­ men's Compensation A c l 1906, and o f section 14 o f the 1925 A c l , with one exception, to which we referred in our previous judgment-', but which is not material for the purpose o f decid­ ing the point under consideration. ' Judgment reported in this vol. ;it p. 136 antr. 222 We propose referring to a number of cases decided by the House of Lords and the Courl of Appeal in England between 1915 and 1939 which, we think, are helpful as showing how those Courts applied the provision as to " reasonable cause " Γοι ihe delay of more than six months in making a claim. \nm Lttckte v. Merry

(1915), 8 B.W.CC. 447, a van-driver who had been in the same employment for seventeen years injured his hand by accident. He explained the accident to his employer, who told him he could potter about the factory. He did this and gradually became able to do most of his old work, but some of his fingers were rendered permanently stiff. He continued in this way receiving full wages all the time for about eight months, when he was dismissed for other causes. He thereupon made a claim for compensation which was resisted on the ground thai no claim had been made within six months oi~ the accident. II was held by the Court of Appeal that the man being in receipt of full wages, and the employers having complete knowledge of the whole mat­ ter, there was reasonable cause for the workman not making a claim earlier. In King v. Port of London Autlunity

(1919)ILL., 12 B.W C.C. 260, Lord Birkenhead, L.C., at page 267, said: " T h e fads in the present case are by no means unlike those disclo­ sed in Luckie v. Merry, [19I5| 3 Κ B. 83 ; 8 B.W.CC. 447, and upon the fads of that case I approve of the decision in that case. I expressly guard myself against the supposition that I lay down any general principle that under all circum­ stances Ihe continued payment of the same wages by the •employer to the injured workman after the accident amounts lo reasonable cause for' not giving notice. The general atmosphere must always be considered. It is sufficient for me to say that the evidence given before the County Court Judge justified, without perhaps requiring, the conclusion that the workman made no formal claim for compensation because he formed the view, encouraged thereto by the conduct of the employer, that he would receive compensation, should incapacity supervene in the future, without the necessity of making a formal claim. It is very easy to imagine cases in which the attitude of the employer during the critical six months may appear to be at once so promising and so gene­ rous that there is very reasonable cause for an omission to give notice. There arc other cases falling upon the other side of the line. It is enough for me to say that in my opi­ nion the present case belongs to the first c l a s s " . 223 1966 Jan. 27, Mar. 9, June, 10 CHARALAMBOS DROUSIOTIS (No. 2) Ό. THE CYPRUS ASBESTOS MINES LTD. 1966 Jan.27, Mar 9, June, 10 ( 1 Ι Λ Κ Μ AMIIUS DltOUMOIIS (No ?) I> I III L i I'RLS Asitrsios MIM slii> In Ihlhiutn ν London, iingliioii & South C oast Katlwav

(1919), 12 ΒW C C 323, a workman, in moving a heavy weight, found he had sustained a rupture He repoited the matter to the officials o f the railway company employing h i m , was given first a i d , and then instructed l o go t o the hospital, wheie he was fitted with a truss. He was able lo return to light or supervising work a few da>s after the accident, being paid the vimc late of wages as before, but was unable l o undcilake any heavy w o i k , and frequently had t o sit down and icst, a state o f f a u s o f which his employers had full know­ ledge He made no claim, however, until he was discharged more than t w o yeais aflei the accident I h e C o u i l o f Appeal held, applying King ν I'oit of London Authority{supio) (and icvei sing the ( m i n i \ t o w l Judge) thai, on die L.cts, ihe em­ ployer. must be taken l o have known that the w o i k m a n would make a claim, it he weie incapacitated at any time by the iniuiy horn earning his lull iatc o f wages, and that this amounted in law t o icasonable cause for delay in making the claim and thai what amounts l o " icasonable c a u s e " is a question not ol fact, bul ol law A t k i n L J , at page M2, said " Ί hen the only othei question is what is ieal!y meant b\ 'icasonable cause' Sub|c\i to—I do not like l o saycnticism, hut subject lo the explanation, which is suggested bymy L o i d o f the passage in l o r d Atkinson's judgment, which I ha\c v c i \ little doubt lull lis the intention o f the learned L o i d , it appears to me that that definition f o i ihe puipose ol this case is quite sufficient He says• Ί think the case o f hanhull ν Vickeis, Ltd, ^1914) 7 ΒW C C 3 9 6 ; Lutkte ν Mt'irv (utpia), and Abbott ν litgglcswude Joint Hospital Hoard,

(1918)9 B W T C 10/, establish th.it where all the f a d s o f a paiticular case piove, l o the satistaction o\'an arbitrator, that a work­ man, to the knowledge o l the employer, οι his agent, intends t o seek compensation for an injury o r accident sustained by h i m , and ihe employer or his agent says οι docs something calculated t o lead the workman t o f o i m a behel, on which he acts, that, without making a claim, compensation will be given t o him in the form o f t n i i i i n u i n g lum in his employment at his l o i m e i wages, .ihhouuh he may not be able t o do efficiently all his formei w o t k , the arbiti.Uoi, as a Judge o f both law and I.id, wipuld be justified in holding that reasonable cause ??4 e x i s t e d ' f o r the w o r k m a n ' s o m i t t i n g t o m a k e a c l a i m f o r ­ m a l l y w i t h i n t h e six m o n t h s ' . I think probably substitute: he i n t e n d s l o say that y o u s h o u l d ' H e is e n t i t l e d l o seek c o m p e n s a t i o n ' . stale o f facts auses in this ease. "1 hai T h e o n l y d m i b t that I have in my m i n d al all u j i o n the p r o p r i e t y o f d e c i d i n g this p o i n t is the q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r o r n o t we ate e n M i l l e d l o d r a w w h a t w o u l d be the inference o f f a c t , ih;:l the w o r k m a n a c l e d u p o n i h e Κ lief t h a i he w o u l d get compensation. B u t il appears to m e t h a t u p o n ihe e v i ­ dence a n d f a d s i n this case, t h a t is the o n l y i l is p o s s i b l e t o d r a w . You infcsxncc i c a l l y have η cave here i n ' w h i c h there can be n o d o u b t w h a t e v e r b u t t h a i (his w o i k ­ m a n »va.., in l a d , a w o r k m a n w h o , w h e n t h e a c c i d e n t h a p p e n e d , was e n t i t l e d ί ο m a k e a c l a i m f o r c o m p e n s a ­ t i o n -jm\ e n t i t l e d κ» l a k e Ihe a j i p r o p n a i c p m c w d i n i " . t o have (fun l i a b i l i t y d e c f a i c d - o n ttie f o o l MIL* C>1' t h e p r o c e ­ d u r e w i n c h is n o w l a i d d o w n i n the case o f King Fort of Lo/idiiii Authority I n the case οΐ Lir.ylev Π \ I ho (\t;prti)'\ *'. Ίh.utuis lirtlt (i r , :-'0) Λ; Sons I'd. B . W . C C . 367. i h e a p p l i c a n t w.r. e m p l o y e d b j H*e r s p . . ; > d e n t s as a m u n i t i o n w o r k c i In August 1917. v , h i l f a'< hei w o r k she was i n j u r e d by a shell f a l l i n g o n ϊι·:ι t o e , but sl-e d i d i-cU m a k e a c l a i m f o r conq-icnsation u n i i l l e b r u a i > 19"!) h e l d that o n t h e facts o f t h e ca.-.c t h e r e was '·> v:<s ;κ> n n k - r . i ' e o l a n y reasonable catiMj f o r the dela\ o f m o r e t h a n si.\ m o n i h s m m a k i n g a c l a i m ; m i d t h a t , once i c a s o n a b l e cause f o r si,v m o n t h s ' d e l a y is e s t a b l i s h e d , l l i e n i h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r I'luthcr delay in m a k i n g a c l a i m is o r is not reasonable does not ;ni*:c , i n Shotts Iron Co. Ltd. v. Fordycc

(1930)23 U . V - ' . C C 73, l e f e r r c d t o a b o v e , a m i n o r w r e n c h e d t h e muscles o l his back in A p r i l 1924 b u t he l e m a i n e d at w o r k a l f i i l i wacv.·. u n t i l M a r c h 19^8, w h e n , o n a c c o u n t o f i n c i easing d i f f i c u l t MI per­ f o r m i n g his w o r k , he gave it u j i . H e m a d e his c l a i m f o i c o m - p e n s a l i o n f o i the f i r s t l i m e in O c l o b e r

1. It was l i e k i by the H o u s e o f l . o i d s t h a i , f r o m ihe l a d s a» f o u n d b> the a i b i t r a t o r t o the c l f e c l thai the w o r k m a n h o n e s t l y believed t h a i I h e a c c i d e n t was l i i v i a l a n d t h a i n o t h i n g serious h a d h a p p e n e d t o h i m , t h e p r o p e r i n f e r e n c e o f l a w t o be d r a w n \\;»s that ihe f a i l u r e l o m a k e c l a i m w i t h i n six m o n t h s was o c c a s i o n e d by a reasonable cause. I n Staining v. Southern Railway Co. ( 1 9 3 7 ) 30 H.W.C C. 430, a ' s i g n a l m a n - s u s t a i n e d a r u p t u r e in 1928 w h i l e a l w o r k . 225 1966 Jan. 27, Mar. 9, June, 10 C H A R M ΛΜΙΚΛ OfOUSIuTIS (No- 2) n. TlIF C'Vi'RUS Asm STOS MiNrs L I D . Jan. 27, Mar. 9, lune 10 — I.ARAI.AMHOS A f t e r c o n s u l t i n g his o w n d o c t o r a n d a f t e r h a v i n g been seen by Ins e m p l o y e r s ' d o c t o r he c o n t i n u e d a l his w o r k as a s i g n a l m a n , , • , •- , , u n d e r t h e i m p r e s s i o n Unit the m a t t e r was t r i v i a l , but w e a r i n g a truss. Six years later he began l o realise t h a t the m a t t e r | n j r , ^ h c w a s 0 | y c r c i | Work as a c r o s s i n g w ; i s ( U U l|.ivi.l| Huni-SUMIS ·Ν) 2\ ,. . · · ι ι · · • k e c j u r , b u l refused it o n g r o u n d s u n c o n n e c t e d w i t h his i n j u r y . H i s ein|)loyeis then reduced his wages o n the g r o u n d t h a t he m i ( '·,runs was AMM-SIUS M l NI-S L i n . ,,|' ;, p i i y s i e a i d i s a b i l i t y " . unable lo perform signal-box duty " in consequence T h e w o r k m a n t h e n f i l e d a request f o r a i ( t i t r a t i o n w h i c h was some H}/2 years a l t e r the o r i g i n a l accident. T h e C o u n t y C o n Μ .ludge held that there was rea­ s o n a b l e cause for i h e f a i l u r e t o m a k e a c l a i m w i t h i n the sta­ t u t o r y p e r i o d and Ihe e m p l o y e r s a p p e a l e d . I l was held b\ ihe C o u r t o\' A p j ) c a l i l i a ! ihe J u d g e had d r a w n ihe j i r o p e r i n f e r e n c e o f L a w f r o m the facts f o u n d a n d they a p p l i e d Iron ('<>. Flit. I n Hams Ail I!·* \. l-'ordyec v. Janus· 34, ihe Shafts (sit/>r,t). liondcn & Co. (Land) h u s b a n d o f the p l a i n t i f f Ltd. |1939] 3 had been k i l l e d m .hi I ' c c i d c n ! due to ihe c o n d i t i o n o f the f l o o r o f a p o w e r *.'•,:! i o n i i i e ease in .support o f an a c t i o n f o r d a m a g e s was so :•·'!•< tag t h a i il was i;oi ilten Ib o u g h t a d v i s a b l e l o m a k e a ι Λ ϋ ΐ ι ΐ ίϋκΚ·ΐ" i!ie W o r k m e n s C o m p e n . v t t i o n A c t , Ί92 1 ), w h i c h Our. w a . l i l t l e l i k e l i h o o d w o u l d e\e;" be p r o s e c u l e d . <•:· 'in M · »·: lii·,* . . . i i i ' i i f o r damages, great I n the d i f f i c u l t y was e n - c o u r . : . :e-i in a - e e r t j i n i n g w h o , a m o n g a n u m b e r o f c o n t r a c ­ ture ; i n : ! .til*· c o ' , h ' ; u i o i > , w.i.·. f.'s|ionsii)le l o r the o f ihv i i o - n w i n c h was ihe cause o f the a c c i d e n t . condition A l the t r i a l , it ν, ι . ei'. c i d e d that the w r o n g p a r t i e s had been s u e d , a n d it w a , liu-n !<*.* 'are i<» bri-.tg aa , ; d i o u u n d e r the l-'aial Accidenl.s ,\\i ..;'.ί;ιΓ.ί .he i i g h r p a r i \ U p o n the a c t i o n b e i n g dismissed nj'-phcaiitMi w;i·. n n t d i . f o r a n under W o ; !·m e n ' s die assessment ( oiii|K.*nsaiioii οΐ Acl, compensation
2. Il c o n t e n d e d t h a i ihe absence o f the c l a i m u n d e r t h a i A c t was was d u e l o m i s t a k e w i t h i n the m e a n i n g o f s e c l i o n 14 o f t h a i A c t . it was held by the C o u r t o f A p p e a l t h a i there h a d n o t been a n y m i s t a k e . but t h e r e was. o n the facts, r e a s o n a b l e cause \\Ϊ\· n o i h a \ i i H ' ;:iw:* n n l i c c o\' the m a k i n g o f a c l a i m u n d e r I h e \ i . t , a n d a n o r d e r s h o u l d be m a d e f o r assessment o f c o m ­ pensation T h e o r d e r o f C o d d a r d L.J. was ucc«*-rdint:lv re­ versed V l a c l . i n n o u , I...I., al |iage 38, said : "The o l h e r q u e s t i o n is w h e t h e r there was o t h e r r e a s o n ­ able cause for not n i a k i n » this c l a i m within the 6 months. We have had a quantity of cases cited to us containing expressions of opinion about this clause or other parts ol" section
3. I want first lo say ι his. Il seems to me that a- question as to whether or nol there has been a mistake or olher reasonable cause is primarily a question of fact, and, in the normal case when it comes on appeal from a county Court Judge who has found, or who has not found, that there was a mistake or oilier reasonable cause, the function οϊ the Court of Appeal is only to say whether or not there was evidence on which he could make that finding. Most of the cases which have been cited lo us arc simply concerned with lhat question of fact. The present case is not an appeal from a county Court Judge, hul from a decision of G O D DARD, 1..J. He is in a less favourable position than lhat of a county Court Judge, in that his finding of fact does not bind us. We are nol concerned merely to say whe­ ther or nol there was evidence on which he could come to that conclusion. We are in a position to differ from him if we think cither thai ihcre was a mistake or thai there was other reasonable cause. In my view, we are justified in finding, and 1 find as a fact, that there-was reasonable cause for nol having given notice. In my judgment, there was reasonable cause—and 1 differ from G O D D A R D , L.J., in that respccl-and I think lhat an order should have been made for the assessment of com­ pensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925 *\ And du Parcq, L.J., at the same page, said : " I agree. We arc laying down no new principle of law. We arc finding facts as in Ihe ordinary way a county Court Judge silting as an arbitrator would find them, and I do not wish to add anything to what has been said by Mackinnon, L.J.". On the basis of the above authorities we are of the view that once " reasonable cause " for six months' delay is established, then the question whether further delay in filing a claim in Court is or is not reasonable, does not arise. The general atmosphere, including the attitude of the employer during the critical six months, must always be considered by the Court in deciding whether there was reasonable cause for the delay. 227 1966 Jan. 27, Mar. 9, June. 10 CHARALAMBOS DROUSIOTIS (No. 2) o. THE CYPRUS ASBKSTOS MINFS L T D . 1966 •j"n" 27, June 10 — CiiAitAi.AMiins (No 2) ,, Tin· CYI-RUS Asm-sros MINIS LTD. As regards the powers of this Court on appeal from the findings of trial Courts, under section 25

(3)of the Courts υ · J u s t ' c c i- a w » I960, the Court is not bound by any determinations on questions of faci made by the trial Court andhas p O W C r jo review the whole evidence and draw its own inferenccs ; and although the Court of Appeal would be slow to reverse the findings of primary facts made by the trial Court (though il has done so in proper cases), in would be prepared | 0 f u r m an independent opinion upon the proper conclusion of fact to be drawn from a finding of primary facts. In this case the undisputed primary fads arc that during the first six months theworkman was in receipt of full wages and the employers had complete knowledge of the whole mat­ ter ; that t h e workman was treated in the employers' hospital on the same day of the accident and lhal their doctor recom­ mended light work ; lhat he had pain for the first six months and lhal he continued lo be under the treatment of the com­ pany's doctor for a period of three years ; that he was given light work and paid full wages from the lime of the accident for a period well exceeding the first six months; lhal for al least ihtee years the woikman honestly believed lhat nothing serious had happened lo himand that it was only in 1952 that he bv!''u to realise that Ihe mailer was not trivial, when he \y::s relenvtl lo the coinjiany's X-ray specialist. I roni ihese fads we are of ihe view lhat the proper inference lo be drawn is that there was reasonable cause for delay in filing his claim in Court. It, therefore, follows thai we differ from the finding of fact of Ihe trial Court and we find as a fact that (here was reasonable cause for the workman n o t filing his application in Court within ihe prescribed period of six months from the accident. The only question now lefl open is whether ihe workman's injury complained of in his application filed in 1961 resulted from ihe accident which occurred in therespondent company's employment in 1949. As theIrial Court hasnot made a finding o:i this question, acting under the powers conferred on this Court under the |>rovisions of section 25

(3)of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960, we direct a re-trial of the following issue by the same Bench, if possible : ( a ) t h e trial Court lo hear a n d determine the issue whe­ ther the workman's injury in 1961 resulted from his accident in 1949, after receiving oral medical evidence to be adduced, in addition to the medical reports already pul in evidence by consent ; and 228 (b) if the Court finds for the workman on the above issue, then to assess the amount of compensation payable to him and give judgment accordingly. In the result the appeal is allowed and the cross-appeal dismissed. The order of the District Court dismissing the workman's claim is set aside, and an order of re-trial made in the above terms. The respondents shall pay the costs of this appeal, but the costs before the District Court shall be costs in the cause at the re-trial and shall be decided by the trial Court. Appeal allowed. Cross-appeal dismissed. Order of District Court set aside. Order for a re-trial in terms. Order as to costs as aforesaid. 229 1966 Jan. 27, Mar. 9, June, 10 CHARALAMBO» DROUSIOTIS (No. 2) D. THE CYPRUS ASBESTOS MINES LTD.