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 House considered what was meant by the term ‘process’ in the Act and the Regulations. The point of law certified was ‘Whether for the purposes of the Factories Act 1961 and Regulations thereunder ‘process’ carried on in a factory means a . .
The employer was prosecuted under the 1961 Act. Held: the burden of proving that it was not reasonably practicable to make and keep a place of work safe rested upon the defendant employer. If an exception was to be established, it was for the party claiming the exception to establish it. (Majority) Where a linguistic … Continue reading Nimmo v Alexander Cowan and Sons Ltd: HL 1967
The claimant sought damages for personal injuries arising from exposure to depleted uranium whilst working for the defendant. An earlier claim had been compromised. The defendant denied liabilty and relied also on the compromise. Held: The evidence from expert witnesses was conflicting, but there was no sufficient evidence of exposure of the claimant to depleted … Continue reading David v Honeywell Normalair-Garrett Ltd: QBD 2 Mar 2006
In the context of an action for a trip, and whether the path could have been repaired, the question of ‘reasonable practicability’ could be decided on inferences from the evidence without recourse to onus of proof being on the defenders. Judges: Lord Hodson Citations:  1 WLR 304, 1970 SC (HL) 37, 1970 SLT 46 … Continue reading Jenkins v Allied Ironfounders Ltd: HL 1970
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
An employer’s duties to provide a safe workplace exists despite the lack of forseeability of any accident of the type which occurred. Citations: Times 29-Sep-1995,  SC 518 Statutes: Factories Act 1961 29(1) Cited by: Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011 The court was asked as to the liability … Continue reading Mains v Uniroyal Englebert Tyres Ltd: IHCS 29 Sep 1995
A forklift truck can be ‘place’ within Act despite being moveable. Citations: Times 04-Nov-1994 Statutes: Factories Act 1961 29(1) Health and Safety Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81091
The court considered the meaning of the word likely in the section: ‘A person shall not be employed to lift, carry or move any load so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to him.’ Held: ‘likely’ in that context meant ‘more probable than not’. May LJ: ‘there was clearly a risk that injury … Continue reading Bailey v Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited: CA 1984
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
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
The plaintiff was injured when working for the defendants spraying glaze onto jars. A small foreign body was blown into her eye. She said that no eye protection had been suuplied as required by the regulations.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal . .
Buxton J explained the decision in Brophy, on the basis that when the fumes came from the factory heating supply and not from any part of the manufacturing process it was not a part of the process carried on in the factory.
The protection . .
Mr McEwan was a probationary fitter employed to maintain and repair buses. He slipped on the surface of a board which was wet and slippery because of a spillage of coolant fluid.
Held: The defenders had failed to prove that it would have been . .
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 . .