[1946] 1 All ER 139
England and Wales
Cited – Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw HL 1-Mar-1956
The injury of which the employee complained came from two sources, a pneumatic hammer, in respect of which the employers were not in breach of the relevant Regulations; and swing grinders, in respect of which they were in breach.
Held: It had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.652299
[1940] 1 KB 342
England and Wales
Approved – Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw HL 1-Mar-1956
The injury of which the employee complained came from two sources, a pneumatic hammer, in respect of which the employers were not in breach of the relevant Regulations; and swing grinders, in respect of which they were in breach.
Held: It had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.652301
[1952] 1 All ER 1013
England and Wales
Cited – Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw HL 1-Mar-1956
The injury of which the employee complained came from two sources, a pneumatic hammer, in respect of which the employers were not in breach of the relevant Regulations; and swing grinders, in respect of which they were in breach.
Held: It had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.652300
The company, a joint venture enterprise, appealed against a refusal to stay prosecutions for various infringements when a fuel depot they were said to control (the Buncefield oil terminal) exploded. The company denied that they were the operator as required within the law.
Held: The operator was the person notifying himself to the authorities as being such, even if it did not have the necessary day to day control of the premises to exert actual control. It had been Total which originally gave such notifications, and it was for the prosecutor to establish that the appellant had given a subsequent modifying notification. A subsequent safety report informally pointed to the appellant, but the authority had not suggested the need to regularise the notification. There was therefore evidence to suggest that the appellant might be the operator, and it should be for a jury to establish the true position. The appeal failed.
Hooper LJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 493
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 2(1) 3(1), Water Resources Act 1991 85(1), Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 4, Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances
England and Wales
Cited – Colour Quest Ltd and others v Total Downstream UK Plc and others (Rev 1) ComC 20-Mar-2009
The claim arose when a petrol spillage created a large vapour cloud which exploded causing widespread damage and injury. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.402958
A Court should not be astute to find against either party, but should apply the ordinary standards. Lord Goddard said: ‘In the first place I think one may say this, that where you find there has been a breach of one of these safety regulations and where you find that the accident complained of is the very class of accident that the regulations are designed to prevent, a court should certainly not be astute to find that the breach of the regulation was not connected with the accident, was not the cause of the accident’
[1945] 1 All ER 387
England and Wales
Cited – Vyner v Waldenberg Brothers Ltd CA 1946
Vyner was working a circular saw when part of his thumb was cut off. The saw failed in several respects to comply with the Woodworking Machinery Regulations, and in particular the guard was not properly adjusted. The accident happened before the . .
Cited – Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw HL 1-Mar-1956
The injury of which the employee complained came from two sources, a pneumatic hammer, in respect of which the employers were not in breach of the relevant Regulations; and swing grinders, in respect of which they were in breach.
Held: It had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.652298
Vyner was working a circular saw when part of his thumb was cut off. The saw failed in several respects to comply with the Woodworking Machinery Regulations, and in particular the guard was not properly adjusted. The accident happened before the passing of the 1945 Act, and the main defence was contributory negligence.
Held: Scott LJ said: ‘If there is a definite breach of a safety provision imposed on the occupier of a factory, and a workman is injured in a way which could result from the breach, the onus of proof shifts on to the employer to show that the breach was not the cause. We think that that principle lies at the very basis of statutory rules of absolute duty.’
Scott LJ
[1946] KB 50
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
England and Wales
Cited – Lee v Nursery Furnishings Ltd CA 1945
A Court should not be astute to find against either party, but should apply the ordinary standards. Lord Goddard said: ‘In the first place I think one may say this, that where you find there has been a breach of one of these safety regulations and . .
Criticised – Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw HL 1-Mar-1956
The injury of which the employee complained came from two sources, a pneumatic hammer, in respect of which the employers were not in breach of the relevant Regulations; and swing grinders, in respect of which they were in breach.
Held: It had . .
Cited – Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority HL 24-Jul-1986
A premature baby suffered injury after mistaken treatment by a hospital doctor. He had inserted a monitor into the umbilical vein. The claimant suggested the treatment should have been by a more senior doctor. The hospital appealed a finding that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.272564
The defendant company appealed against its conviction under the 1974 Act after a driver was buried under the load when his truck overturned on a work-site.
Held: The appeal failed. The policy of the 1974 Act was to impose a positive burden on employers, rather than simply disciplining them for the breach of specific obligations. That being so, the prosecution was entitled simply to point to a state of affairs as amounting to a breach of the statutory duty. The risk which the prosecution must prove should be real as opposed to a fanciful or hypothetical. The relevant risk here was the risk of injury caused by driving the dumper truck. That this was a real risk was established by the fact that there was an accident. That was sufficient to justify the requirement that the first and second appellants should have the burden of proving that they had done all that was reasonably practicable to protect against that risk.
Latham LJ, Gibbs and Jones JJ
[2007] EWCA Crim 3032, [2008] ICR 517, [2008] 2 All ER 1077
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 37
England and Wales
Cited – Chargot Limited (T/A Contract Services) and Others, Regina v HL 10-Dec-2008
The victim died on a farm when his dumper truck overturned burying him in its load.
Held: The prosecutor needed to establish a prima facie case that the results required by the Act had not been achieved. He need only establish that a risk of . .
Cited – Regina v Porter CACD 19-May-2008
Everyday risks may be outwith Health and Safety
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 1974 Act. He was headmaster at a private school. A child of three jumped from steps in the playground injured his head and was taken to hospital where he contracted MRSA and died.
Held: . .
Appeal pending – N Ltd and Another, Regina v CACD 10-Jun-2008
The defence had requested and been give a ruling of no case to answer. The prosecutor now appealed saying that this had been before he had closed the prosecution case, and had been not with his consent.
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal succeeded. . .
Appeal from – Chargot Limited (T/A Contract Services) and Others, Regina v HL 10-Dec-2008
The victim died on a farm when his dumper truck overturned burying him in its load.
Held: The prosecutor needed to establish a prima facie case that the results required by the Act had not been achieved. He need only establish that a risk of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.278932
Mr Kiani went to work at the Land Rover plant; his dead body was found in a tank in the area in which he worked. He had died of asphyxia. His personal representative sued on the basis that Mr. Kiani had accidentally fallen into the tank; Land Rover suggested that his death was suicide. There were thus two possible explanations. The first instance judge had found suicide to be a less than probable explanation, he found that it occurred as a result of accident because the tank had its hatch left open and that Mr. Kiani had probably gone over to have a look, overbalanced and fallen in.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Waller LJ discussed the difficulty arising where two scenarios appeared possible on the facts and said: ‘I do not myself think that it is false logic to reason that where only two possibilities are under consideration both of which seem unlikely, if one seems much less likely than the other, the less likely can be discounted thus making the first likely to have happened on the balance of probabilities.’
Waller LJ said: ‘It seems to me that some of the criticisms made of the recorder are on any view not justified. First it does not seem to me legitimate to say that [certain] evidence established that an accidental fall was ‘impossible’.
. . Second it is not in my view fair to criticise the recorder for not setting out precisely how any accident occurred anymore than it would be fair to say to the defendants that they should show precisely how a deliberate act of suicide would have occurred. As long as accident can be demonstrated to be possible, it is open to a court which has discounted any other possibility to be of the view that accident has been proved on the balance of probabilities. That must be particularly true where a breach of duty, a duty to guard against the very type of injury with which the case is concerned, has been established. Third, I do not myself think that it is false logic to reason that where only two possibilities are under consideration both of which seem unlikely, if one seems much less likely than the other, the less likely can be discounted thus making the first likely to have happened on the balance of probabilities.’
Waller, Rix, Richards LJJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 880
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
England and Wales
Cited – Fosse Motor Engineers Ltd and others v Conde Nast and National Magazine Distributors Ltd and Another TCC 20-Aug-2008
The claimant said that the defendant’s employees had negligently started a fire which burned down the claimant’s warehouse. There was limited evidence to establish the cause.
Held: The claim failed. The scientific evidence did not point to any . .
Cited – Nulty and Others v Milton Keynes Borough Council CA 24-Jan-2013
There had been two fires at a depot owned by the claimants. The fires were found to have been likely to have been caused by the deceased employee. His insurers had repudiated liability saying that the had not been notified oin a timely fashion.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.242897
The claimant was employed as a dinner lady at a junior school. Whilst supervising playtime, a child jumped on her, causing her injury. The council appealed a finding of negligence. The boy had been recognised as being in need of special management for his behaviour, and had behaved in a similar fashion before. There were steps which could have been taken to reduce the risks, including the issue of earnings, training, and the employment of more staff.
Held: Mere forseeability was insufficient to establish liability. Each such case must turn on its own facts. In this case the finding was correct in law.
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Potter
[1999] EWCA Civ 1326
England and Wales
Cited – Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Limited (Chief Constable, Fife Constabulary, third party); Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd HL 1987
The defendant acquired a semi derelict cinema with a view to later development of the site. A fire started by others spread to the pursuer’s adjoining property.
Held: The defendants were not liable in negligence. The intervention of a third . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.146241
The plaintiff was injured repainting a ship in a dry dock.
Held: The situation was one covered by the regulations. The scaffolding used to support the workers had to be of the standard appropriate to maintain the employees’ safety.
[1953] I WLR 906, [1953] 2 All ER 387, [1953] 97 Sol Jo 473
England and Wales
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.237588
[2009] EWCA Crim 655, [2010] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 6, [2009] Crim LR 603
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
England and Wales
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.330973
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 storm causing a mixture of water and oily coolant, normally confined to a channel, to coat the floor.
Held: The employer was not negligent, because it had done all that could reasonably be expected of it, short of closing the factory, to prevent injury. The risk of injury from the slippery floor was not sufficient to require the Defendants to shut the factory.
Lord Oaksey said: ‘On the question of the construction of section 25(1) of the Factories Act, 1937, I am of the opinion that by virtue of that section and the interpretation section 152, the respondents were bound to maintain the floors and passages in an efficient state, but I do not consider that it was proved that they were not in an efficient state. A floor does not, in my opinion, cease to be in an efficient state because a piece of orange peel or a small pool of some slippery material is on it. Whilst I do not agree that the maintenance of the floors is confined to their construction, I think the obligation to maintain them in an efficient state introduces into what is an absolute duty a question of degree as to what is efficient . . The question then is whether section 25(1) applies to things which are not part of the floor but whose presence on it is a source of danger. If section 25 stood alone I would say that it did not. No doubt the section is one dealing with safety, but, even so, keeping the surface of a floor free from dangerous material does not appear to me to come within the scope of maintaining the floor.’
Lord Tucker said: ‘The learned judge seems to have accepted the reasoning of counsel for the plaintiff to the effect that the floor was slippery, that slipperiness is a potential danger, that the defendants must be taken to have been aware of this, that in the circumstances nothing could have been done to remedy the slipperiness, that the defendants allowed work to proceed, that an accident due to slipperiness occurred, and that the defendants are therefore liable.
This is not the correct approach. The problem is perfectly simple. The only question was: has it been proved that the floor was so slippery that, remedial steps not being possible, a reasonably prudent employer would have closed down the factory rather than allow his employees to run the risks involved in continuing work? The learned judge does not seem to me to have posed this question to himself, nor was there sufficient evidence before him to have justified an affirmative answer.
The absence of any evidence that anyone in the factory during the afternoon or night shift, other than the plaintiff, slipped or experienced any difficulty or that any complaint was made by or on behalf of the workers all points to the conclusion that the danger was in fact not such as to impose upon a reasonable employer the obligation placed upon the respondents by the trial judge.’
Lord Oaksey, Lord Porter
[1953] 2 All ER 449, [1953] UKHL 3, [1953] AC 643
England and Wales
Cited – Lewis v Avidan Ltd (T/A High Meadow Nursing Home) CA 13-Apr-2005
A nurse claimed damages after slipping on a patch of water in the nursing home where she worked. The defendant argued that the pipe which had broken was not equipment so as to make it liable.
Held: The nurse’s appeal failed. The mere fact of . .
Cited – Goodes v East Sussex County Council HL 16-Jun-2000
The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road . .
Cited – Munro v Aberdeen City Council SCS 17-Sep-2009
Safety Duty on Employer was not Absolute
The pursuer was injured slipping on ice in her defender employer’s car park. Liability depended on the interpretation of regulation 5, the claimant saying that it imposed an absolute requirement to maintain the workplace in efficient working order . .
Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
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 . .
Cited – Miller v Jackson CA 6-Apr-1977
The activities of a long established cricket club had been found to be a legal nuisance, because of the number of cricket balls landing in the gardens of neighbouring houses. An injunction had been granted to local householders who complained of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.189994
Where a task required common-sense, and no obvious instructions were capable of avoiding a danger, an employer was not required to produce instruction and training. The judge erred in finding liability without finding what would have helped.
Sir Stephen Brown Lord Justice Swinton Thomas
Times 02-Apr-1999, Gazette 24-Mar-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 849
England and Wales
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145764
‘This case concerns an accident at the defenders’ racing stables on 25 March 2011. The pursuer was employed there by the defenders as trainer or assistant trainer. He was exercising a horse (‘Psalm 23′) on the training gallop. At the far end of the gallop, just before the third or final bend, his horse fell and landed on him. He was badly hurt. His left arm was injured and he has been left with a permanent impairment to his left side. He sues the defenders on the basis, in short, that the gallop was unsafe and that that was the cause of the fall.’
Lord Glennie
[2015] ScotCS CSOH – 70
Work at Height Regulations 2005, Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992
Scotland
Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.547657
Falling from ladder at work
[2002] EWCA Civ 374
England and Wales
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.216818
[2002] EWCA Civ 104
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992
England and Wales
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.216678
[2003] EWCA Civ 771
England and Wales
Appeal from – Knott v Newham Healthcare NHS Trust QBD 16-Oct-2002
. .
Appealed to – Knott v Newham Healthcare NHS Trust QBD 16-Oct-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.183389
The claimant was employed as a care worker to collect patients to take them to a day centre. She was injured when a wheelchair ramp in a patient’s home collapsed.
Held: The council were not responsible under the Regulations. They did not own or control the ramp. The ramp was not work equipment used by the appellant at work for the purposes of the Regulations. The ramp had been installed by people other than the council’s own employees, the council had no ability to maintain it and in ordinary parlance it was part of the client’s premises.
Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Rimer
[2008] EWCA Civ 181, Times 24-Mar-2008, [2008] ICR 826, [2008] 3 All ER 1054
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
England and Wales
Appeal from – Smith v Northamptonshire County Council HL 20-May-2009
The claimant, a health care worker was visiting the home of a client when she fell from a defective wheelchair ramp and suffered injury. She sought damages from her employer.
Held: Her appeal failed (Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting). The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.266131
(Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 96/29/Euratom – Protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation – Failure to transpose in whole territory
[2004] EUECJ C-218/02
European
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.192786
The fact that a third party was put at risk by the negligence of an employee did not prevent the employer seeking to rely upon the statutory defence that he had taken all reasonable steps to avoid such risks.
Roch LJ, Bennett, Thomas JJ
Times 17-Sep-1998, [1999] IRLR 646, [1998] EWCA Crim 2511, [1998] 4 All ER 331, [1999] ICR 1004, [1999] 1 WLR 1526
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3
England and Wales
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.87417
A trishaw was properly a form of hackney carriage, not a ‘stage coach,’ and the Local Authority was able to impose conditions upon the licensing of a service, including limiting the number of passengers and so as to ensure safety. A trishaw was a ‘cross between a rickshaw and a bicycle and a tricycle. Like a tricycle, it has three wheels; a single front wheel and two rear wheels. Over the rear wheels, a compartment in which the passengers may sit is suspended. The vehicle is an adaptation of a rickshaw replacing the individual running on the ground and pulling the vehicle with an individual using cycle technique to provide the power for propelling the vehicle.’
Gazette 03-Sep-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1202, (1999) RTR 1982
Town and Police Clauses Act 1847 38, Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 47
England and Wales
Appeal from – Regina v Cambridge City Council ex parte Simon Lane Admn 2-Jun-1998
. .
Appealed to – Regina v Cambridge City Council ex parte Simon Lane Admn 2-Jun-1998
. .
Cited – Oddy, Regina (on the Application of) v Bugbugs Ltd Admn 12-Nov-2003
A private prosecutor appealed dismissal of his complaint that the respondent had operated an unlicensed man-powered rickshaw service. The district judge had held that it was not a taxi service. It was, under the 1869 Act a stage carriage and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.86275
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 one of the sheets while the worker was passing down another after its removal was a step not upon a means of access but upon a part of the place where the work was being done. Lord Goddard CJ said that it would be ‘too artificial to say that there were different branches of work according to which sheet he was removing at any particular moment.’
Lord Goddard CJ
[1951] 1 All ER 357
England and Wales
Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.440370
[1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 401
England and Wales
Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.440371
The claimant sought damages from his employers for causing him bladder cancer. It is known that bladder cancer is caused by exposure to amines and the claimant had been so exposed from two sources. One was his employment, which wrongfully exposed him to amines used in the manufacture of dyes. The other was smoking, for cigarette smoke contains amines. Expert evidence established that the occupational exposure had more than doubled the risk caused by smoking. There was an issue as to whether Bonnington applied or whether the claimant had to prove that ‘but for’ the occupational exposure he would not have suffered the cancer.
Held: Smith LJ did not find it necessary to resolve this issue, holding that the ‘but for’ test was satisfied: ‘In terms of risk, if occupational exposure more than doubles the risk due to smoking, it must, as a matter of logic, be probable that the disease was caused by the former.’
Smith LJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 1261
England and Wales
Cited – Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd; Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willmore SC 9-Mar-2011
The Court considered appeals where defendants challenged the factual basis of findings that they had contributed to the causes of the claimant’s Mesothelioma, and in particular to what extent a court can satisfactorily base conclusions of fact on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.261610
The employer considering the use of dangerous machinery must allow for ‘the contingency of carelessness on the part of the workman in charge of it and the frequency with which that contingency is likely to arise’
Wills J
[1897] 1 QB 192
England and Wales
Cited – Robb v Salamis (M and I) Ltd HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimant was injured working for the defendants on a semi-submersible platform. He fell from a ladder which was not secured properly. He alleged a breach of the Regulations. The defendant denied any breach and asserted that the claimant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.247755
Potter, Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Longmore Lord Justice Jacob
[2004] EWCA Civ 76
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 5(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.222199
[2007] EWCA Civ 1202
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.261635
Nurses at a secure hospital claimed damages after suffering injury at work. They said that hospital had failed to implement the Regulations. The hospital said that was not relevant when assssing any breach of a duty of care.
Held: To the extent that the regulations could be implemented without causing any risk to a patient, any failure to implement them was relevant, and the regulations could be used to inform the court as to the extent of the employer’s duty to its staff.
Waller LJ, VP, Carnwat LJ, Maurice Kay LJ
Times 01-Dec-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1576
Safety and Security in Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton Hospitals Directions 2000
England and Wales
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.246367
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 deliberately misused. The employer could not be vicariously liable for the deliberate wrongful act of a co-employee. That mischief was not foreseeable under the 1992 Regulations. A step is only realistically ‘necessary’ when the mischief to be guarded against can be reasonably foreseen.
Mr Justice Bodey, Lord Justice Rix, Lord Justice Mantell
Times 25-Nov-2002, Gazette 09-Jan-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1604, [2003] ICR 179
Provision and Use of Work Eqipment Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2932) 20, Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) regulations 1996 (1996 No 1592) 5
England and Wales
Cited – Robb v Salamis (M and I) Ltd HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimant was injured working for the defendants on a semi-submersible platform. He fell from a ladder which was not secured properly. He alleged a breach of the Regulations. The defendant denied any breach and asserted that the claimant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.178202
The employer provided an employee with a simple metal tool, a drift, with no apparent defect, which had, in fact, been manufactured to excessive hardness, as the result of negligent heat treatment by the otherwise reputable manufacturer. That was a defect not discoverable, other than by testing of a kind which an employer could not reasonably have been expected to undertake, before issuing the tool to an employee.
Held: In those circumstances, the employer was not liable to the injured employee for the consequences of the manufacturer’s negligence.
Viscount Simonds said that the employers were not in breach of a duty to provide safe plant and equipment to their employees where they purchased tools from well-known makers which subsequently were revealed to be defective, but were entitled to assume they were proper for use. He approved what was said by Finnemore J. in an assizes case to the following effect: ”Employers have to act as reasonable people, they have to take reasonable care; but if they buy their tools from well-known makers, such as the second defendants are, they are entitled to assume that the tools will be proper for the purposes for which both sides intended them to be used, and not require daily, weekly or monthly inspection to see if in fact all is well.’ My Lords, a prolonged examination of the authorities could not have led him to a sounder conclusion.’
Viscount Simonds
[1959] AC 604, [1959] 1 All ER 346, [1959] 2 WLR 331, [1959] 2 Lloyds Rep 587
England and Wales
Appeal from – Davie v New Merton Board Mills CA 1958
Parker LJ pointed out that the reasoning in Biddle was inconsistent with other decisions to the effect that there is no duty of care in respect of premises over which the master has no control, but it is consistent with alternative ratios that the . .
Cited – Woodland v The Swimming Teachers’ Association and Others QBD 17-Oct-2011
The court was asked as to the vicarious or other liability of a school where a pupil suffered injury at a swimming lesson with a non-employee during school time, and in particular whether it had a non-delegable duty to ensure the welfare of children . .
Cited – Devine v Colvilles Ltd HL 11-Mar-1969
The House considered the position of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitir. The plaintiff had been injured falling or jumping from a raised platform.
Held: The claim succeeded. ‘ I hold it proved that there was a general panic. Now the defenders . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.445620
[2007] EWCA Crim 3396, [2008] 2 Cr App R (S) 26
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.314322
The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury for stress and anxiety in being engaged on the behalf of the respondent in the course of combat.
Held: The defendant had no duty to maintain a safe system of work for military personnel during combat operations. The term ‘combat’ must be given a wide meaning. The immunity was not limited to accasions when an enemy was present, but extended to all activities directed against an enemy where the service personnel were at risk of attack themselves.
Owen J
Times 29-May-2003, [2003] EWHC 1134 (QB)
England and Wales
Cited – Bici and Bici v Ministry of Defence QBD 7-Apr-2004
Claimants sought damages for personal injuries incurred when, in Pristina, Kosovo and during a riot, British soldiers on a UN peacekeeping expedition fired on a car.
Held: The incidents occurred in the course of peace-keeping duties. It was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.182727
[2008] EWCA Crim 1963, [2009] 1 All ER 786, [2009] ICR 127, [2009] Env LR 7, [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 81, [2009] 1 Cr App R 16, [2009] Crim LR 381
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2, Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 3(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.330985
ECJ Appeal – Actions for annulment – Admissibility – Premature action – Action out of time – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to effective judicial protection – European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) – Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – Articles 57 and 59 – Substances subject to authorisation – Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern – Inclusion on the candidate list of substances – Publication of the list on the ECHA website – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Dies a quo – Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court – Claim barred by lapse of time
Cruz Villalon AG
C-625/11, [2013] EUECJ C-625/11
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 45
European
Opinion – Polyelectrolyte Producers Group Geie v European Chemicals Agency ECJ 26-Sep-2013
ECJ Appeal – European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) – Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical substances – Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) – Articles 57 and 59 – Substances subject to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471947
[1998] 1 WLR 1722, [1998] 2 All ER 690, [1998] EWCA Civ 287, [1998] PIQR Q41
England and Wales
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.143765
The claimant sought damages after falling from scaffolding erected by the defendants, his employers.
McKenna J
[201] EWHC 479 (QB)
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471561
The claimant sought substantial damages after being injured whilst at work slipping on the floor.
[2013] EWHC 436 (QB)
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471558
Lord Drummond Young
[2013] ScotCS CSOH – 22
Scotland
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.470955
May LJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 289, [2007] ICR 1469
England and Wales
Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.250987
The Hon Mr Justice Turner
[2020] EWHC 771 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 November 2022; Ref: scu.649926
The claimant was injured at work at a swimming pool. As he and other members of staff tidied away a wet inflatable slide, he slipped and fell, suffering serious injury.
Held: ‘it was necessary for the employers to have laid down a system to this extent: they should have warned their employees about the potential hazard of standing on the wet slide to remove the ropes attached to it so long as the air hose was still underneath it. That, it seems to me, was the hazard. I know that in this particular case the work had been done for many years and no accident had occurred; but of course that is usually the case. However, it does seem to me that there was inevitably a potential risk if men and women were treading on a wet, slippery piece of plastic to pull it out of the water and beneath that plastic, but invisible to the naked eye at this point, there was the air hose.’ Steps could have been taken to ensure the hose was put away before the slide. The appeal succeeded, and the defendant was responsible, but the plaintiff was 50% contributorily negligent.
[1997] EWCA Civ 2594
England and Wales
Applied – General Cleaning Contractors Ltd v Christmas HL 1953
It is the duty of the employer to consider the situation, devise a suitable system and instruct his employees what they must do and to provide appropriate equipment. In leaving it to individual workmen to take precautions against an obvious danger, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.142993
Criminal liability under the 1984 Act is strict save for the caveat as to reasonable practicability.
Gazette 22-Jan-1997
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
England and Wales
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.85785
[2003] EWHC 2934 (QB)
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
England and Wales
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.188748
An offence was committed under the Act unless the company takes all reasonable steps to protect its employees.
Times 02-Jan-1997
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.86683
Ward, Elias, Lewison LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 392
England and Wales
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462554
Liability for vibration white finger damage was foreseeable from 1973, but liability began in 1975 when precautions became available against the consequences and so the employer was able to protect his employees.
Times 06-Dec-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1049
England and Wales
Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.140916
Claims were made after the deaths of British troops on active service in Iraq. In one case the deaths were from detonations of improvised explosive devices, and on others as a result of friendly fire. It was said that there had been a foreseeable risk of the deaths. The defendant sought the strike out of the claims as without merit.
Held: The court was being asked as to the scope of the principle of combat immunity.
Owen J
[2011] EWHC 1676 (QB), [2011] HRLR 35
European Convention on Human Rights 2
England and Wales
Cited – Swain v Hillman CA 21-Oct-1999
Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed
The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear . .
Cited – Solutia UK Limited v Griffiths CA 26-Apr-2001
The court considered issues relating to the appropriateness of the claimants instructing London solicitors in a case in which those solicitors had submitted a bill of costs totalling pounds 220,000 in connection with a claim in which their clients . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .
Cited – Wragg and Another v Partco Group Ltd UGC Ltd CA 1-May-2002
A claim was made against directors of a company involved in a takeover, for failure to make proper disclosure. The case involved also other issues. The defendants appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim.
Held: The rules made . .
Cited – Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
Cited – Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence CA 21-Feb-1996
A soldier in the Artillery Regiment was serving in Saudi Arabia in the course of the Gulf war. He was injured when he was part of a team managing a Howitzer, which was firing live rounds into Iraq, and he was standing in front of the gun when it was . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Defence v Al-Skeini and others (The Redress Trust Intervening) HL 13-Jun-2007
Complaints were made as to the deaths of six Iraqi civilians which were the result of actions by a member or members of the British armed forces in Basra. One of them, Mr Baha Mousa, had died as a result of severe maltreatment in a prison occupied . .
Cited – Bankovic v Belgium ECHR 12-Dec-2001
(Grand Chamber) Air strikes were carried out by NATO forces against radio and television facilities in Belgrade on 23 April 1999. The claims of five of the applicants arose out of the deaths of relatives in this raid. The sixth claimed on his own . .
Cited – Wragg and Another v Partco Group Ltd UGC Ltd CA 1-May-2002
A claim was made against directors of a company involved in a takeover, for failure to make proper disclosure. The case involved also other issues. The defendants appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim.
Held: The rules made . .
Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.441403
A soldier in the Artillery Regiment was serving in Saudi Arabia in the course of the Gulf war. He was injured when he was part of a team managing a Howitzer, which was firing live rounds into Iraq, and he was standing in front of the gun when it was negligently fired by the gun commander. The Ministry of Defence sought to have the application struck out as disclosing no cause of action. The judge held at first instance that there should be a trial.
Held: The Court struck out the claim by application of combat immunity principles. Even on the facts pleaded, the plaintiff did not have a cause of action in negligence against the defendant. No duty of care can be owed by one soldier to another on the battlefield, nor can a safe system of work be required from any employer under such circumstances.
Neil LJ said: ‘Where . . the court is satisfied that additional facts will not change the framework of the claim and that the opposing arguments have been fully deployed the court should not shrink from deciding whether the application to strike out is well-founded in law. At the same time the Court must take account of Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s admonition that it is normally inappropriate to decide novel questions on hypothetical facts. But the novelty of the question of law is not an absolute barrier. It is to be remembered that the resolution of a question of law at an early stage in proceedings may result in a very substantial saving of costs.’
Neil LJ
Independent 29-Feb-1996, Times 27-Feb-1996, [1996] QB 732, [1996] 2 All ER 758, [1996] EWCA Civ 1323, [1996] 2 WLR 474
England and Wales
Cited – Nissan v The Attorney General HL 11-Feb-1969
The plaintiff was a British subject with a hotel in Cyprus taken over by British troops on a peace-keeping mission. At first the men were there by agreement of the governments of Cyprus and the United Kingdom. Later they became part of a United . .
Cited – Burmah Oil Company (Burma Trading) Limited v Lord Advocate HL 21-Apr-1964
The General Officer Commanding during the war of 1939 to 1945 ordered the appellants oil installations near Rangoon to be destroyed. The Japanese were advancing and the Government wished to deny them the resources. It was done on the day before the . .
Cited – Shaw Savill and Albion Company Ltd v The Commonwealth 1940
(High Court of Australia) The plaintiff owned a ship ‘The Coptic’ which was in a collision with His Majesties Australian Ship ‘Adelaide’. The plaintiff alleged that the collision resulted from the negligence of the defendant’s officers, saying the . .
Cited – Matthews v Ministry of Defence HL 13-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages against the Crown, having suffered asbestosis whilst in the armed forces. He challenged the denial to him of a right of action by the 1947 Act.
Held: Human rights law did not create civil rights, but rather voided . .
Cited – Bici and Bici v Ministry of Defence QBD 7-Apr-2004
Claimants sought damages for personal injuries incurred when, in Pristina, Kosovo and during a riot, British soldiers on a UN peacekeeping expedition fired on a car.
Held: The incidents occurred in the course of peace-keeping duties. It was . .
Cited – Smith v The Assistant Deputy Coroner for Oxfordshire Admn 11-Apr-2008
The claimant’s son had died of hyperthermia whilst serving in the army in Iraq. The parties requested a new inquisition after the coroner had rules that human rights law did not apply to servicemen serving outside Europe. Reports had been prepared . .
Cited – Davies v Global Strategies Group Hong Kong Ltd and Another QBD 25-Sep-2009
The claimants alleged that the deceased had been shot while employed by the defendants working in Iraq. The defendants said that he had been an independent contractor for whom they did not have responsibility. . .
Cited – Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
Cited – Smith and Others v Ministry of Defence QBD 30-Jun-2011
Claims were made after the deaths of British troops on active service in Iraq. In one case the deaths were from detonations of improvised explosive devices, and on others as a result of friendly fire. It was said that there had been a foreseeable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.84111
An undetected crack caused a structure to fail injuring the plaintiff.
[1993] ICR 551
England and Wales
Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.440437
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 succeeded: ‘this was an operation which, when one looks at it in the round, carried with it a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury. One has only to imagine the comment of any eye surgeon if asked to watch this Plaintiff at work and asked to watch her putting her head into the booth in order to apply the glaze to the inside of the jar and then removing her head with perhaps some of the glaze adhering to her hair and complaining, as she did at times, of a gritty sensation in her eyes. ‘
[1994] EWCA Civ 31, [1995] PIQR 169, [1995] ICR 502
Factories Act 1961 29(1), Pottery (Health and Welfare) Special Regulations 1950, Protection of Eyes Regulations 1974
England and Wales
Cited – Bolton v Stone HL 10-May-1951
The plaintiff was injured by a prodigious and unprecedented hit of a cricket ball over a distance of 100 yards. He claimed damages in negligence.
Held: When looking at the duty of care the court should ask whether the risk was not so remote . .
Cited – Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow HL 25-Jul-1955
The House was asked whether a particular transaction was ‘an adventure in the nature of trade’.
Held: Although the House accepted that this was ‘an inference of fact’, on the primary facts as found by the Commissioners ‘the true and only . .
Cited – Hughes v Lord Advocate HL 21-Feb-1963
The defendants had left a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. A child climbed down the hole. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps. It fell into the hole and caused an explosion. The child was burned. The . .
Cited – Hughes v Lord Advocate HL 21-Feb-1963
The defendants had left a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. A child climbed down the hole. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps. It fell into the hole and caused an explosion. The child was burned. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.263240
The appellants were convicted of failing to conduct their undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, persons not in their employment were not exposed to risks to their health and safety. One of their buildings contained two cooling towers which, when inspected, were found to contain the bacteria which causes legionnaire’s disease. No-one had actually succumbed to that disease, but there was a risk to health and safety and the prosecution’s case was that prima facie there was a breach of section 3(1) because the appellants had failed to ensure that persons not in their employment were not exposed to that risk. The appellants contended that no actual risk to the public had been established.
Held: Section 3(3) of the 1974 Act contains an absolute prohibition subject only to the defence in the section of reasonable practicality. The court referred to the concept of risk as containing the idea of ‘a possibility of danger’.
Steyn LJ said that the ordinary meaning of the word ‘risks’ supported the prosecution’s interpretation that the section was concerned with the possibility of danger: ‘The adoption of the restrictive interpretation argued for by the defence would make enforcement of section 3(1), and to some extent also of sections 20, 21 and 22, more difficult and would in our judgment result in a substantial emasculation of a central part of the Act of 1974. The interpretation which renders those statutory provisions effective in their role of protecting public health and safety is to be preferred.’
Steyn LJ
Gazette 26-May-1993, [1993] 1 WLR 1171
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 33
England and Wales
Applied – Regina v British Steel Plc CACD 31-Dec-1994
British Steel employed two sub-contractors to work in moving a steel tower under their supervision. One platform fell on one of the sub-contractors, killing him. British Steel claimed they had delegated their responsibilities under the Act, and were . .
Cited – Hampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club and Another v Corporation of London and Another Admn 26-Apr-2005
Swimmers sought to be able to swim unsupervised in an open pond. The authority which owned the pond on Hampstead Heath wished to refuse permission fearing liability for any injury.
Held: It has always been a principle of the interpretation of . .
Cited – Chargot Limited (T/A Contract Services) and Others, Regina v HL 10-Dec-2008
The victim died on a farm when his dumper truck overturned burying him in its load.
Held: The prosecutor needed to establish a prima facie case that the results required by the Act had not been achieved. He need only establish that a risk of . .
Cited – Regina v Porter CACD 19-May-2008
Everyday risks may be outwith Health and Safety
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 1974 Act. He was headmaster at a private school. A child of three jumped from steps in the playground injured his head and was taken to hospital where he contracted MRSA and died.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.86155
The claimants sought damages for damage to property alleging breach of statutory duty. The defendant said that the regulations were made under European not English law, and that the Secretary of State did not have power to make regulations under the 1974 Act which would give rise to a right to damages. The regulations had been made in exercise of his powers under the 1972 Act and ‘of all his other enabling powers’.
Held: The question could be put: ‘Do general enabling words cover, as the appellants say, all the powers that might have been invoked to make the SI or are they apt to denote only the powers that must necessarily be utilised if the SI is to take effect according to the terms in which it is enacted? ‘ General enabling words will not be taken as an exercise of all powers which might have been used to create the regulations. They do refer to an enabling power not expressly invoked where that power was a necessary prerequisite of the regulations, where the instrument itself is clear that the power must have been used and where it is necessary to ensure compliance with European law. On this basis the regulations had not been made under the 1974 Act, and in any event such regulations could not base a claim for consequential damages.
Lady Justice Arden DBE Lord Justice Brooke Sir Anthony Clarke MR
Times 30-May-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 536, [2006] 1 WLR 2472
Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No. 3073), Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 15(1), European Communities Act 1972 82(2), Interpretation Act 1978 11
England and Wales
Cited – Buck v Attorney General ChD 1965
The claimant challenged the validity of an order in council. The order used general enabling words, not expressly stating which power had been used for their creation.
Held: The result of those general enabling words was that the order was . .
Cited – Buck v Attorney General CA 2-Jan-1965
By an action for declaratory relief, a challenge was offered to the validity of the Order in Council giving effect to the 1961 Act.
Held: The appeal failed. As a matter of international comity an English court should not grant declarations . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v IDT Card Services Ireland Ltd CA 27-Jan-2006
Under the Marleasing principle, or principle of conforming interpretation, the domestic court of a member state must interpret its national law so far as possible in the light of the wording and purpose of the Directive in question. However this . .
Cited – Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA ECJ 13-Nov-1990
Sympathetic construction of national legislation
LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC . .
Cited – Regina v Bristol Magistrates Court and others ex parte Junttan Oy HL 23-Oct-2003
The improper use of machinery had resulted in the death of an employee, and the applicant was prosecuted under the 1974 Act, but complained that the prosecution should have been under the Regulations. The directive required member states to apply . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .
Cited – Commission v Germany (Rec 1991,P I-825) (Judgment) ECJ 28-Feb-1991
Europa Measures adopted by the Community institutions – Directives – Implementation by the Member States – Implementation of a directive without legislative action – Conditions – Existence of a general legal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.241574
The company was said to have failed in its duties under section 3(1) of the 1974 Act.
Held: The maintenance and cleaning of a company’s premises can be part of its undertaking, for which its managers are criminally responsible, even if outside contractors were used.
Stuart-Smith LJ said: ‘If there is a risk of injury to the health and safety of the persons not employed by the employer, whether to the contractor’s men or members of the public, and, a fortiori, if there is actual injury as a result of the conduct of that operation there is prima facie liability, subject to the defence of reasonable practicability.’
Stuart-Smith LJ
Times 03-Aug-1994, Gazette 07-Oct-1994, Ind Summary 29-Aug-1994, [1994] 4 All ER 1051
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2 3(1)
England and Wales
Applied – Regina v British Steel Plc CACD 31-Dec-1994
British Steel employed two sub-contractors to work in moving a steel tower under their supervision. One platform fell on one of the sub-contractors, killing him. British Steel claimed they had delegated their responsibilities under the Act, and were . .
Cited – Hampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club and Another v Corporation of London and Another Admn 26-Apr-2005
Swimmers sought to be able to swim unsupervised in an open pond. The authority which owned the pond on Hampstead Heath wished to refuse permission fearing liability for any injury.
Held: It has always been a principle of the interpretation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.86063
The deceased’s personal representative sought damages after the death from mesothelioma after working for the defendant for many years.
Laws LJ, Sedley LJ, Maurice Kay LJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 88
England and Wales
Cited – Barker v Corus (UK) Plc HL 3-May-2006
The claimants sought damages after contracting meselothemia working for the defendants. The defendants argued that the claimants had possibly contracted the disease at any one or more different places. The Fairchild case set up an exception to the . .
Cited – Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and Others HL 20-Jun-2002
The claimants suffered mesothelioma after contact with asbestos while at work. Their employers pointed to several employments which might have given rise to the condition, saying it could not be clear which particular employment gave rise to the . .
Cited – Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd v Cox CA 22-Nov-2007
The claimant was the widow of a man who died from mesothelioma after alleged asbestos contamination working for the appellant. The defendant appealed on liability saying that there was insufficient evidence of causation since there was little to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.248804
‘persons employed’ where that expression was used in section 60 of the 1937 Act included not only servants of the occupier, but any other person who might be called on to do work in the factory, including a painter employed by an independent contractor.
Lord Goddard CJ said, ‘The test is whether a person is employed in the factory, not whether he is employed by the occupier.’
[1956] 2 QB 396, [1956] 2 All ER 722, [1956] 3 WLR 271
England and Wales
Approved – Canadian Pacific Steamships Ltd v Bryers HL 1957
A regular member of a ship’s crew was injured when the ship was in dry dock. The Court of Appeal had held that the Regulations applied even though he was not emplyed by the appellant company.
Held: Affirmed. The power contained in section 79 . .
Cited – McDonald 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.538246
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 offered extended beyond those directly working in the factory at issue: ‘(i) the phrase ‘in connection with any process carried on’ refers to the dust and fume produced, not to the person operating that process; (ii) the effect of section 63 was to prohibit accumulation of dust or fume in any workroom at all, and not merely in the workroom where the process producing them was carried out; (iii) comparison with section 4 of the 1961 Act showed that section 63 provided the same ambit of protection as section 4 which, in material part, provided that adequate ventilation of each workroom, and the rendering harmless, so far as practicable, of all fumes, dust etc generated in the course of any process or work carried on in the factory as may be injurious to health; (iv) since the duty imposed by section 63 was to prevent accumulation of dust or fume, the protection which it was designed to achieve must extend to all employed in the workroom, not just those engaged in the process.’
Buxton J
Unreported, 15 June 1995
England and Wales
Explained – 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 . .
Approved – McDonald 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.538245
Vibration tool injury.
[2005] EWCA Civ 452
England and Wales
Cited – Morris v West Hartlepool Steam Navigation HL 1956
The ship had followed a practice of leaving the between deck hatch covers off in the absence of a guard rail around the hatchway. The plaintiff seaman fell into the hold. There was evidence that on this ship it was quite usual for men to be sent . .
Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.224474
[2005] EWCA Civ 430
England and Wales
Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.224475
Hale LJ
[2002] EWCA Civ 572
England and Wales
Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.217007
Pill, Tuckey LJJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 1069
England and Wales
Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.218344
The HSE sought answers from the company, and prosecuted when it got none. They sought judicial review of the magistrates decision to refuse a case stated.
Held: The answers sought were under a section which disallowed any prosecution of the person answering, and therefore the section was to be construed widely. As such there was a clear power to require answers, including answers in writing. The case was remitted to be heard by a different tribunal.
[2003] EWHC 1158 (Admin), [2003] ICR 1287
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 20(2)(j), Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1989
England and Wales
Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.185362
[1997] 3 All ER 78, [1997] 2 Cr App R 40, [1997] Crim LR 512, [1997] ICR 382, [1997] IRLR 189, [1996] EWCA Crim 1768
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.149432
The need to protect a worker engaged in work on a fragile roof demanded some physical steps being taken to prevent a fall.
Gazette 17-Jan-1996
England and Wales
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.88594
An employer’s duty to safeguard his employees against the dangers of working on fragile surfaces requires some physical protection to be given rather than just warnings and or training.
Times 01-Dec-1995
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.87622
A regulation encompassed a requirement to take specified action, so far as it is reasonably practicable, in order to prevent danger. Asquith LJ discussed the term: ”Reasonably practicable’ . . seems to me to imply that a computation must be made by the owner, in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other; and that if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them – the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice – the defendants discharge the onus on them.’
Asquith LJ
[1949] 1 KB 704
England and Wales
Cited – Austin Rover Group Ltd v Her Majesty’s Inspector of Factories HL 1990
The relevant factors in the phrase the words ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ are the foreseeable risk of injury and the cost of the preventive measures. ‘Sections 2 and 3 impose duties in relation to safety on a single person, whether an . .
Cited – Mann v Northern Electric Distribution Ltd CA 26-Feb-2010
Climb over high fence was unforeseeable
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages after suffering very severe injury when climbing onto an electricity substation. He said that the defendant had not satisfied its statutory obligation to fence off the substation. The . .
Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group and Others CA 5-Jun-2009
The court considered a request that one of the three judges (Sedley LJ) recuse himself on the grounds of apparent bias. It was a case claiming damages for personal injury in the form of hearing losses incurred at work. Sedley LJ was Hon President of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.401956
Action for damages based upon stress suffered at work.
Hickinbottom J
[2012] EWHC 346 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451743
Outer House – Opinion – In May 2004 an explosion at the defenders factory caused nine deaths. A pipeline carrying LPG gas had not been assessed for risks. Morrison owned neighbouring premises which were damaged. They began an action for damages. The defenders said that the claim was out of time, but the claimants said that the period for prescription did not begin until the creditor could reasonably have known that the defender might be at fault.
Held: The defence succeeded, applying the doctrine res ipsa loquitur in this particular situation. Under section 11(3) it was the pursuer who must show that it did not have actual or constructive awareness that loss caused by negligence had occurred. The question was whether Morrison knew, or could using reasonable diligence have found out, that it had a stateable prima facie claim arising out of the explosion. The identity of the obligant, the prospects of success and the precise extent of the damage were not relevant. The explosion within ICL’s factory allowed a presumption of negligence in accordance with the principle of res ipsa loquitur. In the absence of any explanation for the explosion, Morrison was entitled to infer that the owner and occupier was responsible for the explosion.
Lord Woolman
[2012] ScotCS CSOH – 44, 2012 SLT 813, 2012 GWD 12-236, 2012 Rep LR 118
Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
Scotland
See Also – ICL Plastics Ltd and Others, Re Application for Judicial Review SCS 11-Mar-2005
The applicants were concerned at the decision to exclude them from their premises to investigate the cause of an explosion leading to the collapse of the factory. . .
Appeal from – David T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Another SCS 14-Mar-2013
Extra Division – Inner House – An explosion at the defenders’ neighbouring premises had damaged those of the pursuer. The defenders now appealed against a finding that the claim was out of time calculated from the time when it had sufficient . .
At Outer House – David T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Others SC 30-Jul-2014
The claimant sought damages after an explosion at the defender’s nearby premises damaged its shop. The defender said that the claim was out of time, and now appealed against a decision that time had not begun to run under the 1973 Act.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.452213
Mr Green was a bus driver who slipped on the step of his bus. Passengers had dripped rainwater on the step. Counsel for Mr Green referred to article 5(1) of the Framework Directive which states: ‘The employer shall have a duty to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect related to work.’ It was submitted that because of the wetness the step had not been maintained in an efficient condition within the meaning of the regulation. After consideration of the relevant terms of the Treaty of Rome and of the Framework and Work Equipment Directives, it was again decided that the duties under European law are not in any sense absolute obligations. It is sufficient if Parliament respects the specified minimum requirements. On the merits of the case, following the general approach set out in Latimer Lord Justice Kay said: ‘I find it impossible to conclude that a bus which is going about its ordinary everyday work, picking up passengers and transporting them in weather which was not in any way out of the ordinary, can be described as not being maintained in an efficient state just because, on a rainy day, some water has got onto the step, either from the wet clothing of the passengers or from their feet. To hold otherwise would be to impose the sort of absolute duty for which Mr Copnall contended but which I reject.’
Kay LJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 1925
England and Wales
Cited – Munro v Aberdeen City Council SCS 17-Sep-2009
Safety Duty on Employer was not Absolute
The pursuer was injured slipping on ice in her defender employer’s car park. Liability depended on the interpretation of regulation 5, the claimant saying that it imposed an absolute requirement to maintain the workplace in efficient working order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.218615
Lord Justice Latham
[2006] EWCA Crim 1156, [2006] ICR 1383, [2007] 2 All ER 665
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 2(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.242124
Pill, Moore-Bick, Aikens LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1329
England and Wales
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448375
[2001] EWCA Civ 1281
England and Wales
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.218283
(Outer House) The claimant was injured working as a gardener, opening a large gate.
Morag Wise QC J
[2011] ScotCS CSOH – 142
Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443289
The general run of fines imposed for Health and Safety breaches is too low. Penalties should be increased where the standards were compromised for cost cutting, for the degree of lapse, and where a fatality resulted. The same standards apply for both small and large companies, but there can still be no general tariff.
Gazette 13-Jan-1999, Gazette 03-Feb-1999, Times 27-Nov-1998, [1999] 2 All ER 249, [1998] EWCA Crim 3154, (1999) 163 JP 359, [1999] Crim LR 238, [1999] IRLR 434
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Yorkshire Water Services Ltd CACD 16-Nov-2001
The defendant company was sentenced for supplying water which was below standard. The fine imposed was calculated according to the number of consumers affected.
Held: When considering the level of fine, the court should look to, the degree of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.156028
The claimant firefighter crushed a finger trying to release a traffic accident victim with a heavy machine for expanding gaps in metal. The defendant appealed on liability. The court was asked whether a simple warning of the possible danger was sufficient.
Held: The employer’s appeal failed (majority). The employer had given inadequate training. The judge had been wrong to find the equipment itelf unsuitable, but the employer’s view that a firefighter should be expected to put his own health and safety before that of an accident victim was quite unacceptable: ‘The implication is that the respondent ought not to have taken over from the leading hand and should not have attempted to save the driver’s life. The respondent had no opportunity to assess what equipment ought to be used; if the rescue attempt was to continue, it had to be with the 1040 ram. Not only is it unrealistic to conclude that the respondent should not have continued with the rescue attempt but the judge found that he did what was expected of him. On the evidence, the respondent acted reasonably. ‘ The claimant took over where the previous firefighter had chosen the equipment, but had become exhausted. He had no choice other than to use equipment on which he had not been trained, and that unfamiliarity with the equipment was causative. The pinch point on the ram was a dangerous part: ‘In the stressful circumstances undoubtedly present at the material time, the absence of training and experience in handling the additional weight substantially increased the risk of the type of injury which occurred, a slip of the hand while manoeuvring the ram in a confined space.’
Pill LJ, Arden LJ, Neuberger LJ
[20061 EWCA Civ 1493
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 4 11
England and Wales
Cited – Marks and Spencer plc v Palmer CA 9-Oct-2001
A shopper carrying some heavy bags tripped and fell over a weather strip, which was proud of the floor at an exit door to the extent of some 8 to 9.5 mm high. The recorder had said that, once he was satisfied that the claimant came into contact with . .
Cited – Yorkshire Traction Company Limited v Searby CA 19-Dec-2003
Buses had not been fitted with safety screens protecting drivers from possible assaults by passengers.
Held: There was no breach of regulation 4: ‘… It does not follow that liability is established simply by showing that it is reasonably . .
Cited – Griffiths v Vauxhall Motors Ltd CA 12-Mar-2003
The court considered the effect of the regulations: ‘Regulation 4 and indeed 5 are concerned with the physical condition of the equipment on the assumption that they will be properly operated by properly trained and instructed personnel.’ A risk . .
Cited – Nimmo v Alexander Cowan and Sons Ltd HL 1967
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.245991
ECJ Failure to fulfill obligations – Directive 90/270 / EEC – Protection of workers – Work with display screen equipment – Minimum safety and health requirements – Failure to transpose
[2004] EUECJ C-359/03
European
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.214650
The claimant had used a sander, and been injured with vibration induced white finger syndrome. The employee appealed against a finding of non-liability saying the company should have known of the risk.
Held: It had become accepted that use of such equipment for more than a certain time each day would be dangerous. The defendant in fact did not know of the danger. Any liability would rely upon a finding of constructive knowledge. Knowledge of the danger had been disseminated only from 1990, and none of the employer’s duties were triggered before 1991.
Hale LJ said that there is: ‘a distinction between holding that a reasonable employer should have been aware of the risks and holding that certain steps should have been taken to meet that risk’.
Lord Justice Auld, Lady Justice Hale, Mr Justice Wilson
[2004] EWCA Civ 147, Times 03-Mar-2004, [2004] ICR 1272
England and Wales
Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
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 . .
Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.193924
The court considered liability after serious injury was suffered by a professional jockey during a steeplechase. His horse threw him after landing and he collided with a guard rail. He now appealed against dismissal of his claim.
Held: His appeal succeeded: ‘it is not enough for a defendant, where Regulations apply, simply to comply with the requirements of reasonableness imported by the common law or the Occupiers’ Liability Act. Where the Regulations apply, the test for an employer (or one in a position comparable to an employer under Regulation 3) is stricter. If, in any particular case arising hereafter, it is shown that what occurred was due to unusual and unforeseeable circumstances, beyond the employer’s control; or if it is shown that what occurred was due to exceptional events the consequences of which could not have been avoided despite the exercise of all due care: then that will mean the employer will have no liability. That, it can be accepted, may be in some situations onerous for an employer. But the Regulations are evidently designed to be stringent; and the test laid down is in general terms workable.’
Longmore, McFarlane, Davis LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 545, [2013] WLR(D) 195, [2014] 1 All ER 405, [2013] LLR 697, [2014] ICR 326, [2013] PIQR P22
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
England and Wales
Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.510008
Extra Division, Inner House – The appellant averred that she had fallen and injured herself on a floor made slippery by an accumulation of cardboard dust. The respondents averred that they operated a cleaning schedule under which floors required to be cleaned regularly to eliminate the build-up of dust, that the appellant had reported to a fellow employee Karen Griffin that the accident had been her own fault, and did not mention that she slipped on dust.
Lady Dorrian, Lord Drummond Young, Lord Philip
[2014] ScotCS CSIH – 65
Scotland
Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.534169
Mummery, Moore-Bick, Jackson LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 188
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
England and Wales
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430078
An employer should recognise that it is not possible to predict all the ways in which dangers may arise, especially where the risk is created by carelessness. The employer is liable even if he did not foresee the precise accident that happened. In claims of damages for alleged negligence it could only be in rare and exceptional cases that an action could be disposed of on relevancy, because the facets and detail of a case on which an assessment of the law must depend could not be conveyed to the mind by mere averments of the bare bones of the case.
Lord Keith of Avonholm
1958 SC(HL) 20
Scotland
Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
Cited – Robb v Salamis (M and I) Ltd HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimant was injured working for the defendants on a semi-submersible platform. He fell from a ladder which was not secured properly. He alleged a breach of the Regulations. The defendant denied any breach and asserted that the claimant had . .
Cited – Flood v The University Court of the University of Glasgow OHCS 8-Jul-2008
The pursuer, a college lecturer claimed damages for stress related injury suffered as a result of overwork. She had communicated with her managers many times about the overload. Other staff had resigned for similar reasons.
Held: The pursuer . .
Cited – Mitchell and Another v Glasgow City Council HL 18-Feb-2009
(Scotland) The pursuers were the widow and daughter of a tenant of the respondent who had been violently killed by his neighbour. They said that the respondent, knowing of the neighbour’s violent behaviours had a duty of care to the deceased and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.183313
The pursuer, a construction worker employed by the defenders, sues in respect of two incidents or series of incidents as a result of which he claims to have suffered an injury to his lower back.
[2006] ScotCS CSOH – 118
Scotland
Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.279618
Claimant’s application for leave to appeal against rejection of personal injury claim against employer.
[2002] EWCA Civ 1394
England and Wales
Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.217571
Richard Seymour QC J
[2008] EWHC 2693 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.427044
Appeal from prohibition notices.
John Howell QC
[2021] EWHC 371 (Admin)
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 22
England and Wales
Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.658889
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for personal injuries. He had been employed cleaning streets and when his hand was badly cut, complained that he should have had protective gloves.
Held: For equipment to be suitable, it must be effective.
Smith LJ said: ‘If a residual risk exists, the regulation is engaged, provided that the risk of occurrence is not so slight as to be de minimis or the nature of the harm so trivial that it should properly be ignored.’
Ward, Smith, Jackson LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 1147, [2011] ICR 209
Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992
England and Wales
Cited – Hampshire Police v Taylor CA 9-May-2013
The officer had been cut by glass when clearing out a cannabis factory. The risk assessment had identified only a need for latex gloves. She said that given the environment heavier garden gloves should have been provided. The Chief Constable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425355
ECJ Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 2003/88/EC – Organisation of working time – Fire fighters employed in the public sector – Operational service – Article 6(b) and Article 22(1)(b) – Maximum weekly working time – Refusal to work longer than that time – Compulsory transfer to another service – Direct effect – Consequence for national courts.
C-243/09, [2010] EUECJ C-243/09
European
Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425288
Turner J
[1998] EWHC 2008 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.439679
Meselothemia
[2005] EWHC 682 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.224314
The defendant company appealed against a finding of liability for injury when its employee fell from a ladder at work. He had been removing an item stored in a loft. The procedure was that the ladder should be footed by another person. The claimant said he had not been told so, but this was denied.
Held: The appeal failed. The method used was in breach of the regulations: ‘The breaches of the Regulations found by the judge (and rightly so found) meant that the claimant was exposed to a risk to which he should not have been exposed. It is no answer to say that the accident would have been avoided if the instructions for use of the ladder had been strictly followed. The claimant’s departure from the prescribed practice was precisely the sort of departure invited by this lengthy, complex and makeshift system. The very likelihood of such a departure reinforces the need for a safe means of access to have been provided.’ The fact that the employer had found alternative storage spaced was sufficient to refute the argument that it had done all that was reasonably practicable to avoid the need for the first storage system.
Sedley, Richards, Sullivan LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 863
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
England and Wales
Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.421073
Appeal against a judgment dismissing a claim for damages for personal injuries the appellant against her employers and a manager employed by the first respondents. The appellant alleged that she had suffered psychiatric injury in the course of her employment and that it was caused by the negligence of the respondents or a breach of implied terms as to safe system of work, and of trust and confidence, in the contract of employment. For the appellant, Mr Green seeks a remission of the case for rehearing.
Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Lloyd Lord Justice Pill
[2006] EWCA Civ 90
England and Wales
Cited – Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004
A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown.
Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. The employer could have checked up on him during his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.238785
[2005] EWHC 813 (QB)
The Construction (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations
England and Wales
Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.224952
Sir Anthony May, Longmore, Stanley Burnton LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 648
England and Wales
Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.416732
Coulson J
[2014] EWHC 122 (QB)
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
England and Wales
Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.559170
The claimant teacher sought damages after being assaulted by an autistic student, alleging failure to provide a safe system of work. There was no completed risk assessment.
Held: The risks had in fact been assessed, including the behaviour of the particular pupil. The court was not satisfied that the defendant had been negligent or failed in its duties to the claimant.
[2006] EWHC 224 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.238931
Holland J
[2007] EWHC 1775 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.258684
Lord Justice Sedley
[2009] EWCA Civ 1581
Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 12
England and Wales
Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.415059
ECJ Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 2003/88/EC – Organisation of working time – Articles 1, 3 and 17 – Scope – Casual and seasonal activity of persons employed under an ‘educational commitment contract’ – Restriction on the working time of such staff in holiday and leisure centres to 80 days per annum – National legislation not providing, for such staff, a minimum daily rest period – Derogations from Article 17 – Conditions – Ensuring an equivalent period of compensatory rest or, in exceptional cases, appropriate protection.
C-428/09, [2010] EUECJ C-428/09
European
Cited – Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others SC 19-Feb-2021
Smartphone App Contractors did so as Workers
The court was asked whether the employment tribunal was entitled to find that drivers whose work was arranged through Uber’s smartphone application work for Uber under workers’ contracts and so qualify for the national minimum wage, paid annual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.425298
ECJ (Opinion) Social policy Protection of the safety and health of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding’ Directive 92/85 / EEC Articles 5 and 11 (1) Maintenance of remuneration and / or benefit ‘Worker transferred to another position during pregnancy’ Assignment due to risk to her health and that of her child ‘Remuneration lower than average remuneration received before temporary assignment to another post’ Former Compensation Monthly salary and bonuses
C-471/08, [2009] EUECJ C-471/08 – O
European
Opinion – Parviainen v Finnair Oyj ECJ 1-Jul-2010
ECJ Social policy – Directive 92/85/EEC – Protection of the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding – Articles 5(2) and 11(1) – Worker . .
Opinion – Parviainen (Social Policy) ECJ 1-Jul-2010
Social policy – Directive 92/85/EEC – Protection of the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding – Articles 5(2) and 11(1) – Worker temporarily transferred to another job during her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.384495
The deceased had died in an accident whilst filming in Spain for the defendants. The plaintiff personal representatives sought damages here, while the defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction under the 1968 Convention, and said that the death actually occurred as a consequence of the negligence of his medical treatment in Spain.
Phillips J
[1994] EWHC QB 1, [1996] 1 WLR 920, [1994] ILPr 731, [1994] 3 All ER 42
Brussels Convention on Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments 1968, Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 1, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
Cited – Haqen v Zeehaqhe ECJ 1990
ECJ ‘Article 6(2) makes provision for a special jurisdiction, which the Plaintiff may choose because of the existence, in clearly defined situations, of a particularly close connecting factor between a dispute . .
Cited – Somafer Sa v Saar-Ferngas Ag ECJ 22-Nov-1978
ECJ 1. The Convention of 27 September 1968 must be interpreted having regard both to its principles and objectives and to its relationship with the treaty. The question whether the words and concepts used in the . .
Cited – Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schroder, Munchmeyer, Hengst and Co and others ECJ 27-Sep-1988
ECJ For Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters to apply, a connection must exist between the various actions brought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.383805
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 manufacturing process or other continuous and regular activity carried on as a normal part of the operation of the factory.’
Held: The word ‘process’ used in its broad sense meant any operation or series of operations of more than minimal duration, which had some degree of continuity or repetition of a series of acts.
Lord Griffiths said: ‘My Lords, I am not prepared to answer the question in this form because the word ‘process’ is scattered throughout many sections of the 1961 Act, and it appears in many regulations made thereunder. Your Lordships have not had the opportunity to consider the meaning to be attached to ‘process’ wherever it appears and it is possible that it has different meanings in different contexts. I would confine my opinion to the meaning of the word ‘process’ where it is used in the 1969 Regulations and I would answer the certified question by saying that where the word ‘process’ is used in the Regulations it means any operation or series of operations being an activity of more than a minimal duration.’
Lord Griffiths
[1989] AC 692, [1989] 1 All ER 113
Factories Act 1961 76(1), Asbestos Regulations 1969
England and Wales
Cited – McDonald 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.538242