McDermid v Nash Dredging & Reclamation Co Ltd

Parliamentary Archives,
HL/PO/JU/18/247

McDermid (A.P.) (Respondent)

v.
Nash Dredging & Reclamation Company Limited (Appellants)

JUDGMENT

Die Jovis 2° Julii 1987

Upon Report from the Appellate Committee to whom was
referred the Cause McDermid (A.P.) against Nash Dredging &
Reclamation Company Limited, That the Committee had heard
Counsel on Tuesday the 5th day of May last, upon the Petition
and Appeal of Nash Dredging Limited, formerly Nash Dredging
and Reclamation Company Limited, of Anchor House, Station Row,
Shalford, Guildford, Surrey, praying that the matter of the
Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely an Order of
Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of 16th April 1986, might be
reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of
Parliament and that the said Order might be reversed, varied
or altered or that the Petitioners might have such other
relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her
Court of Parliament might seem meet; as upon the Case of Jamie
McDermid lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due
consideration had this day of what was offered on either side
in this Cause:

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen
assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of
Appeal (Civil Division) of 16th April 1986 complained of in
the said Appeal be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed and that
the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby,
dismissed this Houses And it is further Ordered, That the
Appellants do pay or cause to be paid to the said Respondent
the Costs incurred by him in respect of the said Appeal: And
it is also further Ordered, That the costs of the Respondent
he taxed in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Legal Aid Act
1974.

Cler: Parliamentor:

75

Judgment: 2.7.87

HOUSE OF LORDS

McDERMID (A.P.)
(RESPONDENT)

V.

NASH DREDGING AND RECLAMATION COMPANY LIMITED

(APPELLANT)

Lord Bridge of Harwich
Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
Lord Mackay
Lord Clashfern of Ackner

LORD BRIDGE OF HARWICH

My Lords,

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches
of my noble and learned friends Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone
and Lord Brandon of Oakbrook. I agree with them both and for
the reasons they give I would dismiss the appeal.

LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE

My Lords,

This was an action for damages for personal injuries by the
plaintiff (appellant) against his employers, the defendants
(respondents), as the result of an accident which took place as
long ago as 22 June 1975.

The fact that on the date of the hearing of this appeal on
5 May 1987 both the question of liability and the quantum of
damages were still open after nearly 12 years for discussion does
not shed a very favourable light on our system for dealing with
litigation of this type.

The plaintiff was employed as a deckhand by…