Mr Uddin, the plaintiff was a machinery attendant in a cement grading and packing factory. He wanted to catch a pigeon sitting behind the revolving shaft of a machine. He climbed a vertical steel ladder to a platform where he knew he was not authorised to be. He stood on the top of a machine … Continue reading Uddin v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd: CA 1965
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
The Appellant had recovered damages for injuries which he alleged had been the result of a failure on the part of the Respondents in their statutory duty to maintain one of the gangways in their works in an efficient state. He slipped on a factory floor which had become flooded in an unusually heavy rain … Continue reading Latimer v AEC Limited: HL 25 Jun 1953
A worker had to remove four corrugated iron sheets from a roof. He was injured and claimed under the 1937 Act. Held: A place can be a means of access at one time and a place of work at a different time but it cannot be both at the same time. A step on to … Continue reading Dorman Long and Co Ltd v Hillier: 1951
When interpreting delegated legislation, the Court ought be concerned with practical considerations rather than construing it by meticulous comparison of the language of the various provisions such as might be appropriate in construing sections of an Act of Parliament and that if the language is capable of more than one interpretation, a court ought discard … Continue reading Gill v Donald Humberstone and Co Ltd: HL 1963
The court considered the meaning of the term ‘dangerous’ in the Act. Lord Justice Clerk Cooper: ‘The question is not whether the occupiers of the factory knew that it was dangerous; nor whether a factory inspector had so reported; nor whether previous accidents had occurred; nor whether the victims of these accidents had, or had … Continue reading Mitchell v North British Rubber Co Ltd: 1945
Singleton LJ said as to regard to section 47: ‘That section again deals with work rooms and with processes carried on in the factory. For the reason I have given with regard to section 4(1) I do not think that section 47(1) applies to the facts of this case.’ Judges: Singleton, Jenkins and Parker LJJ … Continue reading Brophy v J C Bradfield and Co Ltd: CA 1955
The plaintiff suffered illness having inhaled noxious particles of silica which formed part of a substantial quantity of dust given off by a process. The presence of the silica, and its harmfulness, had not been known at the time. Held: The defendants were liable. Singleton LJ said: ‘No one could successfully contend . . that … Continue reading Gregson v Hick Hargreaves and Co Ltd: CA 1955
The section is part of a scheme of criminal liability, from which any civil liability only follows ‘by judicial interpretation’. Diplock LJ said: ‘The occupier’s duty in respect of working places is not to prevent accidents occurring to persons working at them but to take all such measures as are reasonably practicable to make and … Continue reading Taylor v Coalite Oils and Chemicals Ltd: CA 1967
The deceased had worked in the defender’s steel foundry, inhaling there siliceous dust particles. He contracted pneumoconiosis and died. The complaints related to the defender’s failure to provide adequate ventilation to extract the dust. The deceased had inhaled large quantities of noxious particles about which he could have no cause of complaint. The question was … Continue reading Nicholson v Atlas Steel Foundry and Engineering Co Ltd: HL 1957
The plaintiff had been employed by the first defendant as a pipe fitter at two steel works occupied and operated by predecessors of the second defendant. He had worked two years at each of the sites erecting pipes, breaking into old pipes and knocking off old lagging between an inch and three inches in thickness; … Continue reading Banks v Woodhall Duckham and Others: CA 30 Nov 1955
A steel erector had fallen seventy feet to his death from a steel lattice tower. The employers had not provided a safety harness, but the judge found that he would not have used a security belt even if provided, and that the onus was on the pursuer to prove that the deceased would have worn … Continue reading McWilliams v Sir William Arrol and Co Ltd: HL 1962
The claimant was a lorry driver making collections from a power station. On his visits, he visited areas where asbestos sludge was being used. He contracted mesothelioma, and now sought damages. The defendants replied that he was not a worker at the plant within section 47. He now appeaed against rejection of his claim. Held: … Continue reading McDonald v Department for Communities and Local Government and Another: CA 6 Nov 2013
Construction of Workmen Safety Statutes The normal rule that penal statutes must be strictly construed has not been allowed to stand in the way of the protection given to the workman by the statutory language. The House considered the requirement under section 14(1) of the 1937 Act that ‘Every dangerous part of any machinery . … Continue reading John Summers and Sons Ltd v Frost: HL 1955
Contact visiting plants supported asbestos claim The deceased had worked as a lorry driver regularly collecting pulverized fuel ash from a power station. On his visits he was at areas with asbestos dust. He came to die from mesothelioma. His widow now pursued his claim that the respondent had failed to comply with the 1931 … Continue reading McDonald v National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc: SC 22 Oct 2014
Damages were sought after the death of the pursuer’s husband working for the respondent. The trial judge had been satisfied that even if the defendants had performed their duty at common law and pursuant to statute, and had provided the deceased . .
A window cleaner employed by an independent contractor was injured at the factory.
Held: There is nothing new in construing legislation designed for the protection of workers as inapplicable to other visitors to the relevant premises. Viscount . .
A hoist mechanism failed, the employee was injured, and he sought damages from his employer under the Act.
Held: The section imposes an absolute obligation to maintain work equipment in an efficient state or in efficient working order. The . .
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced hearing losses before 1989. The defendant companies now appealed against a finding of liability. … Continue reading Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others: SC 13 Apr 2011
