The defendant was the occupier of premises. He did not direct how the work should be done and was not present at the time the work was being performed. Held: He had not been in control of the relevant work. Judge LJ referred to Regulation 4(2) of the 1996 Regulations and said: ‘The requisite level … Continue reading Mccook v Lobo and others: CA 19 Nov 2002
The claimant sought damages after suffering injury when falling from a ladder working on the uninsured builder’s site. He sued the owners of the property, saying that by refusing to allow or pay for the work to be conducted in safer ways, she had taken control over the works and made herself responsible, pointing to … Continue reading Kmiecic v Isaacs: QBD 12 Mar 2010
The employee claimed damages after injury at work using scaffolding equipment supplied by his employers which was upset by the violent act of a fellow employee.
Held: The equipment when used properly was safe. It only became dangerous if . .
The claimant was replacing a computer memory card. He fell from a ladder suffering injury. He was employed by the defendant contracting for another defendant, and used a ladder on loan from another neighbour.
Held: The contribution sought from . .
. .
Defendant employer’s claim for contribution to damages for fall at work from land owner. . .
The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable for the personal injury to the claimant. The claimant was employed to collect blocks and bring them to the site. He fell and injured himself.
Held: The defendant, the occupier of the land, . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
