Rigby J:

This is an appeal from a decision of the learned President of the Sessions Court sitting as an Arbitrator under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, 1952.

No appeal lies from such a decision except on questions of law. The appeal comes before the High Court upon a certificate given by me under s. 39(2) of the Ordinance that the decision of the Arbitrator involves a question of law which it is desirable in the public interest to have determined by the High Court.

The application for a certificate was made to me by way of Originating Motion. Of necessity it was supported by an affidavit and by copies of certain relevant documents. Neither the grounds of decision of the learned Arbitrator nor the notes of evidence taken by him were before me. The reason for this was that when the present appellant applied for a certified copy of the notes of evidence for the purpose of appealing against the decision she was informed by the Registrar of the Sessions Court, in writing, that since no right of appeal existed excepted on a point of law it was regretted that her request for a certified copy of the notes recorded during the course of the inquiry could not be granted.

On the face of the application itself and the supporting affidavit and enclosures I was certainly of the opinion that a question of law of some practical importance was involved and that I ought to grant a certificate for the argument and determination of that point by the High Court. Having now had an opportunity to study the record and the grounds of decision of the Arbitrator I entertain considerable doubt as to whether I would have granted my certificate in the first instance if I had then had the Arbitrator's notes of evidence and grounds of decision before me, since it appears to me that although there was a point of law - and one of considerable practical importance - involved that point was sufficiently clearly before, and appreciated by, the Arbitrator and that the decision given by him really turned on matters of credibility and questions of facts. I think it would have been very much more satisfactory if the Registrar of the Sessions Court, in the first instance, had supplied the appellant with a copy of the Arbitrator's notes of evidence as originally requested by her. However, since there is, I repeat, a question of law of some practical interest and importance involved, I propose to deal with it perhaps rather more fully than did the learned Arbitrator.

The admitted facts of the case which gave rise to the claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance are sufficiently set out in the grounds of decision of the Arbitrator as copied by him from the formal application to him under Regulation 38 of the Workmen's Compensation Regulations, 1953. They are as follows:

A sailing junk, No. 1218 registered in the Shipping Office, Penang, as owned by the Appellant, carried charcoal between Siam and Penang. On one of its journeys while off the Siamese coast on 20 November 1955, the junk was wrecked and two members of the crew were drowned. The widows of both the deceased live in Penang and they reported the accident at the Labour Office, Penang, on 5 December 1955. The taikong or master of the junk was one Chan Boon Thong, the son-in-law of the Appellant. Chan Boon Thong was recorded in the Shipping Office, Penang as master of the junk. The crew of the junk consisted of 8 Chinese. The application to the Arbitrator was made by or on behalf of Chuah Tye Imm, the widow of one of the two deceased.

It was agreed between the parties that the two deceased were, in fact, members of the crew; that they were both drowned on 20 November 1955, when the junk was wrecked; that Chan Boon Thong was the taikong of the junk; that Chuah Tye Imm was, in fact, the widow of one of the two deceased; and that the circumstances and issues in both cases concerning both widows were the same.

The points in issue between the parties were:

(1) Whether the d