Site icon swarb.co.uk

Brophy v J C Bradfield and Co Ltd: CA 1955

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

Citations:

[1955] 1 WLR 1148

Statutes:

Factories Act 1937 47

Cited by:

CitedBanks v Woodhall Duckham and Others CA 30-Nov-1955
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 . .
CitedMcDonald v National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc SC 22-Oct-2014
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 . .
ExplainedOwen v IMI Yorkshire Copper Tube QBD 15-Jun-1995
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.538243

Exit mobile version