Caribbean Investments Ltd v Bonilla and Galves

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Court of Appeal (Belize)
• Judge: Malone, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 26 April 1974
• Neutral Citation: BZ 1974 CA 15
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 70
• Date: 26 April 1974

Court of Appeal

Malone, C.J.

Civil Appeal No. 70

Caribbean Investments Limited

and

Bonilla and Galves

Mr. D. B. Courtenay for the respondent.

No appearance by the respondents.

Industrial Law - Workmen's Compensation

Workmen's Compensation - Dependants

Practice and Procedure - Courts — Magistrate's Court

Facts: Reference to English Law establishing a dependency under The Workmen's Compensation Act 1925, U.K. — Finding that test of partial dependency was whether the claimant relied partially on some or all of the amount which he had so lost in order to provide himself with the ordinary necessities of life suitable to his class and position

Facts: Whether respondents were partial dependants of deceased — Whether magistrate took into account extraneous matter in deciding that the respondents/appellants were partial dependants — Magistrate drew upon his personal knowledge of respondents/appellants.

Facts: Magistrate stated his personal knowledge of lives of applicants/respondents who were making claims to workmen's compensation as dependants

Held: That the respondents were partial dependants — Appeal dismissed.

Held: No finding that decision arrived at by magistrate was untenable — Appeal dismissed.

Held: Duty of magistrate to confine himself to the evidence before him, although in order to give to that evidence its proper weight and so arrive at a correct finding of fact, he was entitled to draw upon his experience of life in general and on the particular circumstances of life in his district.

JUDGMENT:

1 Julian Maradiaga, an employee of the appellant, died on the 17th April, 1968, as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. $2,750.00 was deposited in Court as compensation by the appellant. On the 17th January, 1969, the Magistrate for the Cayo District on the application of the respondents found that the respondents were partial dependents of the deceased and ordered that the sum so deposited be distributed as follows:

• “1. Reasonable claim for funeral expenses to be paid to Maria Galvez, the sum of $50.00;

• 2. The sum of $1,000.00 to be paid to Rosa Bonilla, the sister of the deceased;

• 3. The sum of $1,000.00 to be paid to Maria Galvez, the niece of the deceased;

• 4. The sum of $700.00 to be paid back to the Caribbean Investments Ltd.”

2 This appeal challenges the Magistrate's finding that the respondents are partial dependents of the deceased on two grounds, viz:

1

that the decision cannot be supported by the evidence; and 2. that the Magistrate took extraneous matters into consideration.

3 Elaborated by Counsel for the appellant, the proposition of law on which the first of the two grounds rests is that given expression to by Viscount Dunedin in Fife Coal Company Limited v. McArthur 19 Butt. W.C.C. 461. At page 473, Viscount Dunedin; adopting the opinion of an earlier authority said:

“since the passing of the 1923 Act it would seem that in order to establish partial dependency the applicant must not only show that he has sustained pecuniary loss by reason of the death of the deceased workman, but must go further and show that he relied partially on some or all of the amount which he has so lost in order to provide himself with the ordinary necessaries of life suitable to his class and position. I think that is right.”

4 As the language of the definition of “dependents” in section 2(I) of the Workman's Compensation Ordinance; more particularly the proviso thereto, follows that of section 4 of the Workman's Compensation Act, 1925 (15 & 16 Geo. 5, c. 84) the above statement as accurately expresses the law of this country as it did the, law of England at the tune it was made. Accordingly, this appeal poses purely factual issues.

5 Counsel for the appellant submits not only that the evidence did not warrant an affirmative finding on either of the two issues which an applicant must establish in order to be classed a partial dependent of a deceased, but that the Magistrate to reach an affirmative answer on each of those issues took extraneous matters into consideration. In support of that latter submission Counsel for the appellant relied a upon the following two passages in the reasons given by the Magistrate for his decision:

“I am personally aware, from my knowledge of recently residing in San Ignacio on two occasions totaling one year, that the deceased resided and contributed to the home of his niece Maria Galvez whenever he was in San Ignacio and was greatly attached and sympathetic towards her needs from the fact that her husband had abandoned her.”

“My personal knowledge through the court of Rosa Bonilla's son, who is of questionable character with a criminal record, leaves me extremely doubtful if he has ever before or even now offered...