HC Deb 25 February 1946 vol 419 cc1558-60
53. Mr. Butcher

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the criticism of Mr. Justice Charles at Lincoln assizes, on 12th February, of the letters bearing various signatures coming from the official solicitor of his Department; what reorganisation of this office he is making; and whether an apology on behalf of his Department has been tendered to the members of the W.L.A. concerned.

Mr. T. Williams

I have seen the criticism directed by Mr. Justice Charles at Lincoln Assizes on 12th February against certain letters coming from the solicitor to my Department. This criticism had no regard to the reasons for the writing of the letters, as to which I propose to circulate a statement in the Official Report. I see no occasion to alter the existing practice or to reorganise my office in regard to the matter. The steps taken by the solicitor, so far from being a deliberate attempt to prevent an injured girl from obtaining justice, as the learned Judge is reported to have suggested, were taken in the interest of persons having claims for negligence against Crown servants, and no apology to the members of the Land Army is called for.

Mr. Butcher

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that it is his desire that his Department should be so conducted as to receive the approbation of His Majesty's judges rather than their stern criticism?

Mr. Williams

If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to read the statement I intend to circulate, he will be fully satisfied my Department does act in the interests of the individual.

Following is the statement:

The facts in the case referred to by the hon. Member are as follow. On 21st November, 1943, a number of members of the Women's Land Army were being driven in a motor lorry by another member of the Women's Land Army on returning from work and, owing to the negligence of the driver, the lorry was upset into a ditch, causing an injury to the plaintiff in the action. These members of the Women's Land Army were at the time of the accident Crown servants, and, as is well known, the Crown is not liable for the torts of its servants. It is, however, and has been for many years, the invariable practice of all Government Departments to provide the funds required to satisfy any judgment obtained against one of its servants where the servant was on duty for the Department at the time of the accident. This puts the injured party in the same position as if the accident was due to the negligence of a driver in the service of a private employer. There is, however, a principle of law which is applicable to accidents which occur under the circumstances of cases such as this, which is that, if the driver and the injured party were in common employment, that is to say, employed by the same employer on a common task, then there is a complete defence to the action, namely, the defence of common employment. Until recently, when an accident arose owing to the negligence of a Crown servant involving another Crown servant and it appeared to the employing department that the defence of common employment could be successfully pleaded, the department declined to accept responsibility for the negligence of the servant. It was urged that it was unfair to the injured party that the employing department should be the person to decide the question of whether the defence of common employment arose, because, if it did so, it would be the judge in its own cause. The matter was raised on one or two occasions in Parliament, and as a result the then Lord Chancellor (Viscount Simon) decided that in such cases the plaintiff should be given the opportunity of having the legal question as to whether the defence of common employment arose referred to the determination of an independent person nominated by himself, and he in fact nominated Mr. John Morris, K.C., now Mr. Justice Morris, to determine questions of this kind. If the independent person certified in a case such as this that, if the driver had been privately employed, the private employer would have been liable in law for the negligence, the plaintiff was so informed and, if the driver of the vehicle was then sued, the department agreed to stand behind him and accept responsibility for any damages and costs which might be involved. If, on the other hand, the independent person certified that the private employer in such circum-stances would not have been liable in law for the negligence of the driver, the department decline to accept financial responsibility for the accident and the plaintiff was left to sue the driver, if he thought fit, with full knowledge that no financial responsibility would be accepted by the department.

The adoption of this practice has resulted in the Crown accepting liability in many cases in which actions could not have been brought against it in the ordinary course, and it has proved eminently satisfactory.

In this particular case the letters to which reference has been made were addressed to the plaintiff's solicitors, who were asked whether they would agree to the matter being referred to the independent person. They decided not to do so but to proceed with the action, joining the Chairman of the War Agricultural Executive Committee as a co-defendant with the driver of the vehicle. The Judge held that the plea of common employment did not prevail, though he expressed the view that the department was quite correct in pleading it.