Category: Health and Safety

Stokes v Guest Keen and Nettlefold (Nuts and Bolts) Ltd: QBD 1968

An employee had been exposed at work over a long period to mineral oil which, on a daily basis, had saturated his clothing and come into contact with his skin. As a result of this he developed cancer of the scrotum from which he eventually died. The factory had known of the risk of scrotal cancer, had failed to draw the workforce’s attention to the risk and had failed to institute periodic medical examinations of workers exposed to the risk.
Held: The court set down the test of an employer’s duty when knowledge of a risk was developing, the test being that of the reasonable and prudent employer, taking positive thought for the safety of his workers in the light of what he knows or ought to know.
Swanwick J: ‘the overall test is still the conduct of the reasonable and prudent employer, taking positive thought for the safety of his workers in the light of what he knows or ought to know; where there is a recognised and general practice which has been followed for a substantial period in similar circumstances without mishap, he is entitled to follow it, unless in the light of common sense or newer knowledge it is clearly bad; but, where there is developing knowledge, he must keep reasonably abreast of it and not be too slow to apply it; and where he has in fact greater than average knowledge of the risks, he may be thereby obliged to take more than the average or standard precautions. He must weigh up the risk in terms of the likelihood of injury occurring and the potential consequences if it does; and he must balance against this the probable effectiveness of the precautions that can be taken to meet it and the expense and inconvenience they involve. If he is found to have fallen below the standard to be properly expected of a reasonable and prudent employer in these respects, he is negligent.’

Judges:

Swanwick J

Citations:

[1968] 1 WLR 1776

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dugmore v Swansea NHS Trust and Another CA 21-Nov-2002
The claimant had become sensitive to latex dust while working for the first employer, then suffered an anaphylactic shock when coming into contact with the dust while employed by the second.
Held: The regulations required that ‘every employer . .
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 . .
Cited – Thompson v Smiths Shiprepairers (North Shields) Ltd QBD 1984
The test to be applied in determining the time at which an employer’s failure to provide protection constituted actionable negligence was what would have been done at any particular time by a reasonable and prudent employer who was properly but not . .
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.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.183175

Walker v Northumberland County Council: QBD 16 Nov 1994

The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did not receive the staff or guidance to allow him to do the work asked of him, and he took a second sick leave. He was then dismissed. He sought damages for the employer’s breach of their duty of care.
Held: The employer was liable in negligence for a second work stress induced nervous breakdown. There was no reason in logic why damages should not be recoverable for psychiatric damages, or why the employer should not have a duty to prevent such damage. If a duty of care is established a claimant must then also show that the steps required to deal with it were reasonable in the context, allowing for the resources available, and the risks must be substantial. By the time he returned to work it was reasonably forseeable that further injury would occur, and the authority could not operate policies which would cause injury to its staff, and the court was free to examine such policies. Given the risk, the authority should have taken steps to avoid further injury to the plaintiff.
The standard of care to be expected of a reasonable local authority required that ‘additional assistance should be provided, if not on a permanent basis, at least until restructuring of the social services had been effected and the workload on Mr Walker thereby permanently reduced.’ The assistance should have been provided ‘notwithstanding that it could be expected to have some disruptive effect on the council’s provision of services to the public.’

Judges:

Colman J

Citations:

Times 24-Nov-1994, Independent 18-Nov-1994, [1995] 1 All ER 737, [1995] IRLR 35, [1995] ICR 702, [1994] EWHC QB 2, [1995] PIQR P521

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Considered – 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 – Glasgow Corporation v Muir HL 16-Apr-1943
The House considered the proper test to define the standard of care that must be adopted by the reasonable man in a claim for negligence.
Held: Lord Clauson said that the test is whether the person owing the duty of care ‘had in contemplation . .
Cited – Paris v Stepney Borough Council HL 13-Dec-1950
(Reversed) The House considered a breach of a duty of care in respect of a man blinded in one eye, when there would be no breach of duty if his sight had not been impaired.
Held: The claim succeeded because he was known by his employers to . .
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 – Anns and Others v Merton London Borough Council HL 12-May-1977
The plaintiff bought her apartment, but discovered later that the foundations were defective. The local authority had supervised the compliance with Building Regulations whilst it was being built, but had failed to spot the fault. The authority . .
Cited – Lavis v Kent County Council QBD 18-Feb-1992
The plaintiff had received serious injuries whilst riding his motor cycle at a road junction for which the defendants were responsible. He alleged that they were liable to him for failing to ensure that proper warning signs were placed at the . .

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – Sutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar CA 5-Feb-2002
Defendant employers appealed findings of liability for personal injuries consisting of an employee’s psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
Held: Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are . .
Cited – Keen v Tayside Contracts OHCS 26-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages for post traumatic stress disorder. He was a road worker instructed to attend by the defendant immediately after a terrible accident.
Held: It was a classic case of nervous shock. He was not a rescuer, and nor had . .
Cited – Ringland v South Eastern Education and Library Board QBNI 16-Jun-2004
. .
Mentioned – White, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998
No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone
The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy.
Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . .
Cited – Leach v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary CA 31-Jul-1998
It was arguable that the police owed a duty of care in negligence to a volunteer they called in to act as appropriate adult in harrowing and traumatic police interviews, and who later suffered nervous shock and stress as a result. The claimant had . .
Cited – McLoughlin v Jones; McLoughlin v Grovers (a Firm) CA 2002
In deciding whether a duty of care is established the court must go to the ‘battery of tests which the House of Lords has taught us to use’, namely: ‘. . the ‘purpose’ test (Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd); the ‘assumption . .
Cited – Garrett v Camden London Borough Council CA 16-Mar-2001
The court considered a claim for work related stress. The claimant asserted that he had been harassed, intimidated and systematically undermined: ‘Many, alas, suffer breakdowns and depressive illnesses and a significant proportion could doubtless . .
Cited – Mather v British Telecommunications Plc SCS 30-May-2000
The pursuer sought damages for injury to her mental health, alleging it was sustained as a consequence of the fault of the defenders et separatim the fault of an employee of the defenders. . .
Cited – Rorrison v West Lothian College and Lothian Regional Council OHCS 21-Jul-1999
The pursuer, a nurse, claimed that she suffered psychological injuries as a result of her treatment at work by two superiors.
Held: The court could find nothing in the pleadings: ‘which, if proved, could establish that Andrews and Henning . .
Cited – Green v Argyll and Bute Council SCS 28-Feb-2002
. .
Cited – Laudanska v The University of Abertay ScSf 4-Nov-2003
. .
Cited – Alexander and Others v Midland Bank Plc MCLC 26-Aug-1998
(Mayor’s and City of London Court) In claim for repetitive strain injury for typists in absence of obvious physical damage was on balance not psychosomatic. Plaintiffs could show more than passing pain and discomfort and the scheme of work imposing . .
Cited – Alexander and others v Midland Bank Plc CA 22-Jul-1999
. .
Cited – Gogay v Hertfordshire County Council CA 26-Jul-2000
The employee sought damages for breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, even though she remained throughout the employment of the Council against whom she was bringing proceedings.
Held: Her remaining in employment was a factor . .
Cited – Young v Post Office CA 30-Apr-2002
The claimant had been absent from work with a psychiatric illness. When he returned, the employers intended that he should work at his own pace and continue to do so for as long as he wished. In practice this arrangement was ignored and he worked . .
Cited – Sussex Ambulance NHS Trust v King CA 5-Jul-2002
The claimant was an ambulance worker. He had been assisting carrying a patient down stairs in a chair. He was injured when his colleague lost his grip, and he suddenly bore the full weight of the patient and chair. He alleged that under the . .
Cited – AB X and Y, Regina (on the Application of) v East Sussex County Council and Another Admn 18-Feb-2003
The physical and psychological integrity which the state may in principle be under an obligation to take positive steps to protect under Article 8 included two particularly important concepts. The first was human dignity, the second was the right of . .
Cited – Mensah v West Middlesex University Hospitals and others EAT 1-May-1998
. .
Cited – McDonald or Cross and Another v Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Another SCS 5-Dec-2000
A promising 39-year old executive, was employed in a job in which (because of geographical factors) close day-to-day supervision of his work was impossible. He became ill with depressive illness and killed himself. After the employee had been off . .
Cited – AB and others v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust QBD 26-Mar-2004
Representative claims were made against the respondents, hospitals, pathologists etc with regard to the removal of organs from deceased children without the informed consent of the parents. They claimed under the tort of wrongful interference.
Cited – MG v North Devon NHS Primary Care Trust QBD 28-Apr-2006
Claim for damages – work induced stress and depression – health visitor. . .
Cited – Angus v Barnet EAT 11-Jul-2000
. .
Cited – Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council; Williams v Southampton Institute; Dawson v Stonham Housing Association EAT 8-Apr-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation
In each case, The employee sought additional damages for non-economic loss after an unfair dismissal.
Held: The Act could be compared with the Discrimination Acts . .
Cited – Marshall Specialist Vehicles Limited v Osborne EAT 29-Apr-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal . .
Cited – Johnson v Unisys Ltd HL 23-Mar-2001
The claimant contended for a common law remedy covering the same ground as the statutory right available to him under the Employment Rights Act 1996 through the Employment Tribunal system.
Held: The statutory system for compensation for unfair . .
Cited – Mackay v Scottish and Southern Energy Plc ScSf 13-Mar-2000
. .
Cited – Ward v Scotrail Railways Limited SCS 27-Nov-1998
The claimant sought damages from the defender, saying that a co-worker had sexually harrassed her. The behaviour continued after she made a complaint to her employer.
Held: It was conceded that the employee’s conduct was not such as to attract . .
Cited – Campbell v North Lanarkshire Council and Scottish Power Plc SCS 30-Jun-1999
. .
Cited – Young or Logan v Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust SCS 3-Aug-1999
. .
Cited – Fraser v The State Hospitals Board for Scotland OHCS 11-Jul-2000
An employer has a duty to take reasonable care to avoid for his employees unnecessary risk of injury including psychiatric and not merely physical injury, but that duty does not extend to a duty to avoid an employee experiencing unpleasant emotions . .
Cited – Stevenson v East Dunbartonshire Council OHCS 29-Nov-2002
. .
Cited – Salter v UB Frozen Chilled Foods OHCS 25-Jul-2003
The pursuer was involved in an accident at work, where his co-worker died. He suffered only psychiatric injury.
Held: Being directly involved, the pursuer was a primary victim, and accordingly not subject to the limits on claiming for . .
Cited – McRitchie v The Scottish Ministers ScSf 21-Jul-2004
. .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.90252

Anne Margaret Pickford v ICI: CA 2 Aug 1996

A failure to provide guidance to employee resulting in repetitive strain injury. A prescribed disease PDA4 of RSI type was found. The issue was causation not forseeability.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Aug-1996, Gazette 23-Oct-1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries Plc HL 30-Jun-1998
In the absence of conclusive evidence establishing a cause of a condition, the judge was free to find that causation was not established and that the claim was lost. There was no necessary obligation on an employer to have procedures which might . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries Plc HL 30-Jun-1998
In the absence of conclusive evidence establishing a cause of a condition, the judge was free to find that causation was not established and that the claim was lost. There was no necessary obligation on an employer to have procedures which might . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.77802

Regina v Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd: CA 1982

The defendants did not warn a contractor’s workmen of the risk of fire from an oxygen-enriched atmosphere. As a result, one of them accidentally started a fire in which eight employees died.
Held: The employers were convicted under section 2(1). The duty under that section includes an obligation to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to safeguard employees from being injured by the activities of contractors and their employees

Judges:

Dunn LJ

Citations:

[1982] 1 All E R 264

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 291)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Associated Octel Ltd HL 14-Nov-1996
The appellants operated a chemical plant. When the plant was shut down for its annual maintenance, an independent firm repaired a tank lining. An employee of that firm was working by electric light. He had to clean the tank with acetone and resin. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Crime

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.184756

Regina v Mara: CA 1987

The court considered whether the cleaning of a factory constituted part of its undertaking.
Held: ‘A factory, for example, may shut down on Saturdays and Sundays for manufacturing purposes, but the employer may have the premises cleaned by a contractor over the weekend. If the contractor’s employees are exposed to risks to health or safety because machinery is left insecure, or vats containing noxious substances are left unfenced, it is, in our judgment, clear that the factory owner is in breach of his duty under section 3(1). The way in which he conducts his undertaking is to close his factory for manufacturing purposes over the weekend and to have it cleaned during the shut down period. It would clearly be reasonably practicable to secure machinery and noxious vats, and on the plain wording of the section he would be in breach of his duty if he failed to do so.’

Judges:

Parker L.J

Citations:

[1987] 1 WLR 87

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Associated Octel Ltd HL 14-Nov-1996
The appellants operated a chemical plant. When the plant was shut down for its annual maintenance, an independent firm repaired a tank lining. An employee of that firm was working by electric light. He had to clean the tank with acetone and resin. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.184758

Chilcott v Thermal Transfer Ltd: Admn 17 Jul 2009

The company had successfully appealed against a prohibition notice relating to its arrangements for working at height. By the time of the prohibition notice, it had implemented a plan satisfactory to the inspector.
Held: The tribunal had not focussed properly on the facts as at the inspector faced them, and had not give adequate regard to his expertise. He had been faced with a need for the supervision of the work. His notice should be amended accordingly, but in view of the arrangements, the notice should be cancelled.

Judges:

Charles J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2086 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Work at Height Regulations 2005

Citing:

Cited – Railtrack Plc v Smallwood QBD 16-Feb-2001
It was not incorrect for an inspector to proceed to issue a prohibition notice to the rail operator, with regard to the use of a signal set, which had been deemed unsafe, even where the operator had given formal undertakings with regard to its’ use. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.372674

Commission v United Kingdom (Social Policy): ECJ 18 Jan 2007

The Commission sought a declaration that, by restricting the duty of employers to care for the health and safety of their employees ‘so far as reasonably practicable’, the United Kingdom had failed to fulfil its obligations under article 5(1) and (4) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers.
Held: Article 5(1) simply embodied the general duty of safety to which the employer is subject, without specifying any form of liability and that it was not to be read as requiring the imposition of no-fault liability. The Commission had not shown how the reasonable practicability defence in section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 offended against the requirements of the Directive.

Citations:

Times 25-Jun-2007, C-127/05, [2007] EUECJ C-127/05, [2007] IRLR 720, [2007] ICR 1393

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 89/391/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

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 – 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.

Health and Safety

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.247911

Burrows v Northumbrian Water Ltd: QBD 10 Oct 2014

Appeal against a decision dismissed the claim of the appellant against his employer, the respondent defendant for damages for personal injury.

Judges:

Walker J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3305 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.537519

Kennedy, Regina (on the Application of) v the Health and Safety Executive: CA 28 Jan 2009

The applicant sought judicial review of an exemption granted by the respondent allowing the importation of a ship for decommissioning where the ship would contain asbestos.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 25

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment, Health and Safety

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280169

Beckingham, Regina v: CACD 22 Mar 2006

The court allowed the defendant’s appeal against her conviction under section 7 of the 1974 Act in relation to an outbreak of legionnaires disease traced to the cooling towers of an air-conditioning system for which she, the building owners’ employed architect, had been responsible. The prosecution had served on Ms Beckingham ten particulars of alleged breaches of duty by way of specified acts or omissions. Rose LJ said: ‘having regard to the way in which this case was presented by the prosecution, it was incumbent on the judge specifically to direct the jury that they must unanimously be sure that one or more of the particulars relied on as supporting the offence was made out and that this gave rise to a breach of duty under section 7.’

Judges:

Rose LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 773

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

health and Safety at Work Act 1974 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278938

McEwan v Lothian Buses Plc: OHCS 4 Apr 2006

Mr McEwan was a probationary fitter employed to maintain and repair buses. He slipped on the surface of a board which was wet and slippery because of a spillage of coolant fluid.
Held: The defenders had failed to prove that it would have been reasonably practicable for them to prevent the breach of regulation 12(3).
Lord Emslie said: ‘As regards regulation 5(1) I am not persuaded that it was ever intended to impose an absolute duty in exactly the same circumstances as are covered by the qualifying duty under regulation 12(3). At the time when the precursor of regulation 12(3) appeared as the second part of section 28(1) of the Factories Act 1961, the absolute obligation contained in the first part of that section was held not to cover spillages and other transient conditions. Where these matters are now expressly covered under regulation 12(3), it seems to me that, on a proper construction, regulation 5(1) should be confined in scope to the permanent state of the workplace, or at least to longer-term situations. In this regard I find myself in agreement with the approach recently taken by the Court of Appeal in Lewis v Avidan Limited.
It is of course true that, as Lord Brodie observed in Cochrane v Gaughan, the words in parentheses; ‘… (including cleaned as appropriate)’ – which did not appear in previous legislation – bear to extend the scope of the duty under regulation 5 to some degree. In my view, however, sufficient content can be given to these words by construing the regulation as extending, at most, to such non-constructional states as would be removed by appropriate cleaning (my emphasis), and thus still as excluding momentary or transient spillages which no appropriate cleaning regime could practicably have dealt with in the time available. The element of appropriateness must, in other words, be given content as well as the reference to cleaning which does not stand alone. Approaching the matter in this way would have the merit of maintaining the logical distinction, which applied under earlier legislation, between absolute duties applying to the permanent or long-term state of the workplace and means of access, and duties qualified by reasonable practicability applying to short-lived transient conditions. It would also have the advantage of preserving the settled meaning which has, for decades, been accorded to statutory duties expressed in terms of ‘maintaining premises in an efficient state’.
For the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that I am not suggesting that any relevant distinction should be respected merely because it was established under earlier legislation. Plainly, such an approach would be untenable following repeal of that legislation and implementation of the Workplace Directive, although I note in passing that the latter does not clearly impose on employers any absolute duty to secure the safety of either new or existing workplaces under all possible conditions. The point is rather that, in the 1992 Regulations as in earlier legislation, qualified and unqualified duties have been enacted side by side, and in that context it is surely necessary to construe the unqualified duties, where possible, in such a way as to preserve some semblance of content and application for the qualified. If the absolute duty prescribed under regulation 5 were to be given the wholly unrestricted meaning for which the pursuer contended, then in my view many of the other regulations would become otiose, and the qualification of reasonable practicability in particular defined situations (for example under regulation 12(3)) might as well not be there at all.’

Judges:

Lord Emslie

Citations:

2006 SCLR 592

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Approved – 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.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.240074

Davies v Health and Safety Executive: CACD 18 Dec 2002

The court considered whether the reverse burden of proof in a statute creating offences is compatible with the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6(2) of the ECHR. The judge had ruled against a submission that section 40 was not compatible with the presumption of innocence in article 6(1) unless the section was read down so as to impose only an evidential burden on the employer.
Held: The appeal failed. The imposition of a legal burden of proof was justified, necessary and proportionate. Regard had to be had to the fact that the Act’s purpose was both social and economic, to the fact that duty holders were persons who had chosen to engage in work or commercial activity and were in charge of it and that in choosing to operate in a regulated sphere they must be taken to have accepted the regulatory controls that went with it. However: ‘Before any question of reverse onus arises the prosecution must prove that the defendant owes the duty (in the case of section 3 to the person affected by the conduct of his undertaking) and that the safety standard (in the case of section 3 exposure to risk to health or safety) has been breached. Proof of these matters is not a formality. There may be real issues about whether the defendant owes the relevant duty or whether in fact the safety standard has been breached, for example where the cause of an accident is unknown or debatable. But once the prosecution have proved these matters the defence has to be raised and established by the defendant. The defence itself is flexible because it does not restrict the way in which the defendant can show that he has done what is reasonably practicable.’

Judges:

Tuckey LJ, Douglas Brown J, Gordon J

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 2949, [2003] ICR 586, [2003] IRLR 170

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 40, European Convention on Human Rights 6(2)

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Health and Safety, Human Rights

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270004

Jennings v The Forestry Commission: CA 23 May 2008

The claimant was a self employed contractor. He suffered serious injuries when while working for the defendant, his vehicle overturned. The defendant appealed against the finding of liability. The Land Rover went out of control on a steeply sloping field on which he was driving in the course of carrying out fencing work for the Forestry Commission. He alleged that the Forestry Commission had assumed control over his work equipment (the Land Rover). The judge had said: ‘a householder who employs a contractor to do work on his home, and then sees the contractor using his equipment in a way which appears to be dangerous, is not in breach of Regulation 3 if he does not intervene.’
Held: The appeal failed. The Forestry Commission were plainly carrying on an ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Regulation 3(4).

Judges:

May LJ, Richards LJ, Sir Paul Kennedy

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 581, [2008] ICR 988

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kmiecic v Isaacs QBD 12-Mar-2010
The claimant sought damages after suffering injury when falling from a ladder working on the uninsured builder’s site. He sued the owners of the property, saying that by refusing to allow or pay for the work to be conducted in safer ways, she had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268000

Mason and Another v Satelcom Ltd and East Potential Ltd: CA 14 May 2008

The claimant was replacing a computer memory card. He fell from a ladder suffering injury. He was employed by the defendant contracting for another defendant, and used a ladder on loan from another neighbour.
Held: The contribution sought from the owner of the ladder failed. It had not been proved that East owned the ladder, and therefore their duty went no further in this case than to make sure whilst it was under their control it did not get in anyone’s way.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice May and Lord Justice Longmore

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 494, Times 04-Jun-2008, [2008] ICR 971

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (1992 No 2932)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Mason v Satelcom Ltd and others QBD 24-Jul-2007
The claimant IT engineer was injured replacing a computer card. He was employed by other defendants contracting for the now only continuing defendant. . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267654

Bostock v Carillion Construction (Contracts) Ltd and Another: CA 17 Apr 2008

Employers appealed a finding that the claimant had contracted asbestosis through his work for them in the past. He had worked for two such firms and the court had apportioned liability equally.

Judges:

Hughes LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 451

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267564

Arriva Trains Northern Ltd v Eaglen: CA 10 Apr 2008

The respondent had claimed for long term back injury which he blamed upon unsatisfactory seating arrangements as a train driver. The company appealed against a finding of liability.

Judges:

Rix, Longmore, Wilson LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 352

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266554

Baker v TE Hopkins and Son Ltd: CA 24 Jul 1959

The defendant had employed to clean a well. In error a petrol pump was sued, which discharged carbon monoxide into the well. On two workers getting into difficulties, a doctor sought to rescue them. All three died in the well. The employer denied negligence as regards the death of the Doctor.
Held: ‘ Bearing in mind that danger invites rescue, the court should not be astute to accept criticism of the rescuer’s conduct from the wrongdoer who created the danger. Moreover, I think it should be remembered that it is fatally easy to be wise after the event. It is not enough that, when all the evidence has been sifted and all the facts ascertained in the calm and deliberate atmosphere of a court of law, the rescuer’s conduct can be shown ex post facto to have been misguided or foolhardy. He is entitled to be judged in the light of the situation as it appeared to him at the time, i.e., in a context of immediate and pressing emergency. Here Dr. Baker was faced with a situation in which two men were in danger of speedy death at the bottom of the well, unless something were done very quickly. He was a doctor, and he had been specially summoned to help. Any man of courage in his position would have felt impelled to act, even at the risk of his own safety. Time was pressing; immediate action was necessary if the men in danger were to be helped; there was virtually no opportunity for reflection, or for estimating the risks involved in an act of rescue. If Dr. Baker in such circumstances had instinctively gone straight down the well, without stopping to take any precautions at all, it would, I think, have been difficult enough to criticise him. But in point of fact he did take the very wise precaution of securing himself with a rope, whereby those on the surface could pull him up if he himself were overcome. The immediate cause of his death was the sheer mischance of the rope becoming caught on some obstruction, so as to make it impossible for those on the surface to pull him to safety. I do not think that, having regard to the emergency in which he was acting, he is to be blamed for not foreseeing and guarding against the possibility of such a mischance. On the contrary, I entirely agree with the view expressed by the judge that the defendants, whose negligence brought about the danger, must accept the risk of mischances of this kind. In all the circumstances, I find it impossible to accept the contention that Dr. Baker was guilty of any negligence either causing or contributing to his death.’

Judges:

Morris, Ormerod, Willmer LJJ

Citations:

[1959] EWCA Civ 4, [1959] 1 WLR 966, [1959] 3 All ER 225

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262820

Hood v Mitie Property Services (Midlands) Ltd and Another: QBD 1 Jul 2005

Defendant employer’s claim for contribution to damages for fall at work from land owner.

Judges:

Playford QC HHJ

Citations:

[2005] EWHC B6 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Construction (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1996, Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263174

Regina v P Ltd and Another: CACD 11 Jul 2007

A child had been injured when a load fell from a fork lift truck. It was said not to have been secured as required by Health and Safety Regulations. The company was to be prosecuted. The prosecutor appealed a preliminary ruling that in order to establish guilt as against an officer of the company, they had to show that the officer knew of the breach.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The prosecutor could rely on actual knowledge or on the company officer having been put on enquiry as to the breach. Any ruling should only have been made after the prosecutor had completed his evidence. The case was remitted.

Judges:

Latham LJ, Pitchford J, Royce J

Citations:

Times 13-Aug-2007, [2007] EWCA Crim 1937, [2008] ICR 96

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Wotherspoon v HM Advocate 1978
The Lord Justice General set out the requirements to establish an offence under section 37(4) of the Act. Where the officer of the company had no actual knowledge of the breach of the regulations, the question was whether he should have been put on . .

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Crime

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258850

Ellis v Bristol City Council: CA 5 Jul 2007

The claimant appealed dismissal of her claim for personal injuries. She worked at a nursing home, and had slipped on urine on the floor. Slip mats had been placed on the floor, but had been insufficient. There had been previous accidents, and a risk assessment had identified the dangers, and steps taken. The claim was based on the construction of the floor.
Held: The judge had wrongly not considered the associated Code of Practice as an aid to construction of the Regulations. The appeal was allowed. The judge had been wrong to have excluded all but permanent features of the floor: ‘Regulation 12(1) and (2) do require the court to consider suitability in the context of the circumstances of use, including circumstances which are temporary in nature, providing they arise with a sufficient degree of frequency and regularity. The paragraphs read together require that the surface of a floor or traffic route must not be slippery.’

Judges:

Smith LJ, Lloyd LJ, Wilson LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 685, Times 21-Aug-2007, [2007] ICR 1614

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 12, Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rogers v George Blair 1971
The court considered the suitability of some goggles as a means of protecting a workman’s eyes.
Held: To be suitable, the protection need not make it impossible for an accident to occur but it must make it highly unlikely. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254461

Thomson v Kvaerner Govan Limited: HL 31 Jul 2003

The defendant appealed reversal on appeal of the award of damages aganst them. The pursuer had been working within the hull of a ship, and the plank on which he was standing had snapped, causing him to fall. The plank should have been of sufficient strength to hold his weight. The pursuer’s memory of the events was found to be faulty in several respects.
Held: An appellate court should only replace its own judgment on the facts where the opinion appealed was ‘plainly wrong’. The appeal court here appeared not to have followed that rule. There were difficulties in the pursuer’s explanation, but no other explanation offered itself. Nevertheless, in the absence of evidence, the claimant had to rely upon res ipsa loquitur. That was not available to the pursuer here, and the opinion dismissing his claim was restored.
Lord Hope said: ‘The rule which defines the proper approach of an appellate court to a decision on fact by the court of first instance is so familiar that it would hardly be necessary to repeat it, were it not for the fact that it appears in this case to have been overlooked.’ and: ‘It can, of course, only be on the rarest occasions, and in circumstances where the appellate court is convinced by the plainest of considerations, that it would be justified in finding that the trial judge had formed a wrong opinion.’

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Citations:

[2003] UKHL 45, 2003 SCLR 765, 2004 SLT 24, [2004] PIQR P7, 2004 SC (HL) 1

Links:

Bailii, House of Lords

Statutes:

Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Regulations 1960 (SI 1960/1932) 17(1)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Clarke v Edinburgh and District Tramways Co HL 1919
The House considered the ability of an appellate court to reconsider the facts.
Held: The privileges enjoyed by a trial judge extend not only to questions of credibility.
Lord Shaw said that the judge enjoys ‘those advantages, sometimes . .
Cited – Watt (or Thomas) v Thomas HL 1947
When Scots Appellate Court may set decision aside
The House considered when it was appropriate for an appellate court in Scotland to set aside the judgment at first instance.
Lord Thankerton said: ‘(1) Where a question of fact has been tried by a judge without a jury, and there is no question . .
Cited – McLaren v Caldwell’s Paper Mill Company Ltd 1973
(Lord Stott, dissenting) A Lord Ordinary’s view on the credibility or reliability of a witness is not sacrosanct. . .
Approved – Yuill v Yuill CA 1944
Appellate Court’s Caution in Reassessing Facts
The Court of Appeal was invited to reverse the decision of the judge at first instance to accept the evidence of the petitioner (no evidence having been called by the respondent).
Held: The court considered the caution needed when overturning . .
Cited – Scott v The London and St Katherine Docks Co CEC 1865
Requirements to set up Res Ipsa Loquitur
The maxim res ipsa loquitur applies only where circumstances are established which afford reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defenders, that the accident arose from their negligence. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is that: . .

Cited by:

Cited – McGraddie v McGraddie and Another (Scotland) SC 31-Jul-2013
The parties were father and son, living at first in the US. On the son’s wife becoming seriously ill, the son returned to Scotland. The father advanced a substantal sum for the purchase of a property to live in, but the son put the properties in his . .
Cited – Henderson v Foxworth Investments Limited and Another SC 2-Jul-2014
It was said that land, a hotal and gold courses, had been sold at an undervalue and that the transaction was void as against the seller’s liquidator.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The critical issue was whether ‘the alienation was made for . .
Cited – DB v Chief Constable of Police Service of Northern Ireland SC 1-Feb-2017
The appellant said that the police Service of Northern Ireland had failed properly to police the ‘flags protest’ in 2012 and 2013. The issue was not as to the care and effort taken, but an alleged misunderstanding of their powers.
Held: Treacy . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.185423

Noble v Southern Railway Co: HL 18 Apr 1940

The deceased was killed by an electric train. He was employed as a as a fireman and attached to the locomotive depot at Norwood Junction, having piloting duties, so that when a driver did not know the railroad, he had to travel in the engine cab and show it to him. Having reported one night at the engine shed and was then told to go to East Croyden, travelling as a passenger from Norwood Junction Station by a train due to leave shortly. To catch that train he had to walk to the Junction Station. There was a recognized route had been specified as the right way since the locomotive depot was opened. The distance along this route, which was adequately lighted at night and perfectly safe, was 1,002 yards. There was, however, a short cut along the lines of the railway, the total distance of which was 841 yards. This route was dangerous because of live rails, various obstructions and electric trains. It was not lit at night and its use by employees of the respondents was strictly prohibited. The deceased took this route and was killed by an electric train coming up behind him. He had departed from the recognized and safe- route and was walking along the highly dangerous route in close proximity to the rails used by electric trains. His widow claimed workers compensation.
Held: The claim succeeded. Proceeding to the railway station was to report duty and was during the course of his employment.
Lord Wright said: ‘I have often reflected with sadness that the Act was to be administered with as little technicality as possible. Yet thousands of reported cases have accumulated round it and fresh ones are likely to go on accumulating so long as the Act remains in its present form. . . The fundamental and initial question in every claim under the Act must be whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. That is a question of fact which can only be decided by the County Court Judge by applying his common sense and his knowledge of industrial conditions to the evidence ‘ However: ‘our duty is to follow the law as we believe it to have been laid down in the previous decision of the House of Lords.’
Viscount Maugham said that three questions had to be answered: ‘First, looking at the facts proved as a whole, including any regulations or orders affecting the workman, was the accident one which arose out of, and in the course of, his employment?
Secondly, if the first question is answered in the negative, is the negative answer due to the fact that when the accident happened the workman was acting in contravention of some regulation or order?

Citations:

[1940] UKHL 1, [1940] 2 All ER 383

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248490

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 contributed to the accident by his negligence.
Held: The employee’s appeal succeeded. The aim in both regulations is the same. It is to ensure that work equipment which is made available to workers may be used by them without impairment to their safety or health: see article 3(1) of the Work Equipment Directive. This is an absolute and continuing duty, which extends to every aspect related to their work. The employer had a duty to anticipate accidents. The accident was caused by the defender’s failure to comply with the regulations, but the pursuer contributed to the extent of 50%.

Judges:

Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rudger of Earlsferry and Lord Carswell

Citations:

[2006] UKHL 56, Times 22-Dec-2006, 2007 SC (HL) 71, [2007] 2 All ER 97, [2007] ICR 175

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/2306) 4 20, Framework Directive 89/391/EEC, Work Equipment Directive 89/655/EEC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Robb v Salamis (M and I) Limited OHCS 16-Mar-2005
. .
See Also – Salamis (Marine and Industrial) Limited v Douglas Forbes OHCS 14-Jul-2005
. .
Cited – Hindle v Birtwistle 1897
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’ . .
Cited – Horton v Taplin Contracts Limited CA 8-Nov-2002
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 . .
Cited – Litster and Others v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd HL 16-Mar-1989
The twelve applicants had been unfairly dismissed by the transferor immediately before the transfer, and for a reason connected with the transfer under section 8(1). The question was whether the liability for unfair dismissal compensation . .
Cited – Pickstone v Freemans Plc HL 30-Jun-1988
The claimant sought equal pay with other, male, warehouse operatives who were doing work of equal value but for more money. The Court of Appeal had held that since other men were also employed on the same terms both as to pay and work, her claim . .
Cited – John Summers and Sons Ltd v Frost HL 1955
Construction of Workmen Safety Statutes
The normal rule that penal statutes must be strictly construed has not been allowed to stand in the way of the protection given to the workman by the statutory language. The House considered the requirement under section 14(1) of the 1937 Act that . .
Cited – Mitchell v North British Rubber Co Ltd 1945
The court considered the meaning of the term ‘dangerous’ in the Act. Lord Justice Clerk Cooper: ‘The question is not whether the occupiers of the factory knew that it was dangerous; nor whether a factory inspector had so reported; nor whether . .
Cited – Mcfarlane v Ferguson Shipbuilders Limited OHCS 16-Mar-2004
. .
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 – 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 – Owners of the ‘Boy Andrew’ v Owners of the ‘St Rognvald’ HL 1947
The House should not alter the apportionment of responsibility for an accident assessed by the judge save in exceptional circumstances. . .
Cited – Close v Steel Company of Wales Ltd 1962
The pursuer sought damages after injury arising from the use of a tool for a purpose other than that for which it was intended to be used. Lord Denning quoted Sir Frederick Pollock to say: ‘Judicial authority belongs not to the exact words used in . .
Cited – Miller v South of Scotland Electricity Board HL 1958
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 . .
Cited – John Summers and Sons Ltd v Frost HL 1955
Construction of Workmen Safety Statutes
The normal rule that penal statutes must be strictly construed has not been allowed to stand in the way of the protection given to the workman by the statutory language. The House considered the requirement under section 14(1) of the 1937 Act that . .
Cited – Lyon v Don Brothers, Buist and Co 1944
Lord Justice General Normand said that the circumstances which can reasonably be expected by an employer in the context of health and safety ‘include a great deal more than the staid, prudent, well-regulated conduct of men diligently attentive to . .
Cited – Smith (formerly Westwood) v National Coal Board HL 1967
Lord Reid said that an employer ‘must always have in mind, not only the careful man, but also the man who is inattentive to such a degree as can normally be expected.’ . .

Cited by:

Cited – Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd and others HL 2-Jul-2008
The deceased worked for the defendants on an oil rig. He was injured by a door closer he was attempting to repair. The defendants denied that the mechanism was equipment within the Regulations.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The door closer was . .
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.

Health and Safety, Scotland

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.247398

PRP Architects v Reid: CA 28 Jul 2006

A lift was held to be work equipment within the Regulations.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1119, [2007] ICR 78

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd and others HL 2-Jul-2008
The deceased worked for the defendants on an oil rig. He was injured by a door closer he was attempting to repair. The defendants denied that the mechanism was equipment within the Regulations.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The door closer was . .
Cited – 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.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244102

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 rule, so that the defendants could be liable for all the losses despite the fact that others who may have contributed were not being sued.
Held: The defendants were not liable jointly and severally with other possible defendants, but only in aliquot proportion to their contribution to the injury suffered. ‘The effect of the [1978 Act] is that if each defendant is treated as having caused the mesothelioma as an indivisible injury and pays the damages in full, he will be able to recover contribution to the extent that he has paid more than his fair share of the responsibility from such other tortfeasors as are traceable and solvent. But he will in effect be a guarantor of the liability of those who are not traceable or solvent and, as time passes, the number of these will grow larger.’
Lord Scott of Foscote: As to Fairchild: ‘liability was not imposed on any of the defendant employers on the ground that the employer’s breach of duty had caused the mesothelioma that its former employee had contracted. That causative link had not been proved against any of them. It was imposed because each, by its breach of duty, had materially increased the risk that the employee would contract mesothelioma. That, coupled with the fact that mesothelioma had been contracted and that it was not possible to tell when the fatal inhalation had taken place, justified, in their Lordships’ view, the imposition of liability on each employer who had contributed to the risk.’ and ‘That brings me to the third question. It is a well established principle in the law of tort that if more than one tortfeasor causes the damage of which complaint is made, and if it is not possible to attribute specific parts of the damage to a specific tortfeasor or tortfeasors in exoneration, as to those parts of the damage, of the other tortfeasors, the tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for the whole damage. A pedestrian on the pavement injured by a collision between two cars both of whose drivers were driving negligently can hold either driver liable for his or her injuries. The apportionment of liability between the two negligent drivers is no concern of the victim.’
Baroness Hale of Richmond: ‘the damage which is the ‘gist’ of these actions is the mesothelioma and its physical and financial consequences. It is not the risk of contracting mesothelioma. ‘ and ‘while the borderline between a divisible and an indivisible injury may be debateable, mesothelioma is an indivisible injury. What makes it an indivisible injury, and thus different from asbestosis or industrial deafness or any of the other dose-related cumulative diseases, is that it may be caused by a single fibre.’
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘The justification for the joint and several liability rule is that if you caused harm, there is no reason why your liability should be reduced because someone else also caused the same harm.’

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond

Citations:

[2006] UKHL 20, Times 04-May-2006, [2006] 2 WLR 1027, [2006] 2 AC 572

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – McGhee v National Coal Board HL 1973
The claimant who was used to emptying pipe kilns at a brickworks was sent to empty brick kilns where the working conditions were much hotter and dustier. His employers failed, in breach of their duty, to provide him with washing facilities after his . .
Cited – Gregg v Scott HL 27-Jan-2005
The patient saw his doctor and complained about a lump under his arm. The doctor failed to diagnose cancer. It was nine months before treatment was begun. The claimant sought damages for the reduction in his prospects of disease-free survival for . .
Appeal from – Barker v Saint Gobain Pipelines Plc CA 5-May-2004
. .
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 – 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 . .
Cited – Chaplin v Hicks CA 1911
A woman who was wrongly deprived of the chance of being one of the winners in a beauty competition was awarded damages for loss of a chance. The court did not attempt to decide on balance of probability the hypothetical past event of what would have . .
Cited – Hymowitz v Eli Lilly and Co 1989
(Court of Appeals of New York) The court considered the market share doctrine for apportioning responsibility between tortfeasors: ‘We hold that the liability of DES producers is several only, and should not be inflated when all the participants in . .
Cited – Brown v Superior Court 1988
(Supreme Court of California) The court considered the ‘market share doctrine’ for apportioning liability between tortfeasors: ‘In creating the market share doctrine, this court attempted to fashion a remedy for persons injured by a drug taken by . .
Cited – Dingle v Associated Newspapers CA 1961
A defamation of the claimant had been published and then repeated by others.
Held: The court discussed the logical impossibility of apportioning damage between different tortfeasors: ‘Where injury has been done to the plaintiff and the injury . .
Cited – Kitchen v Royal Air Force Association CA 1958
The plaintiff’s husband, a member of the RAF, was electrocuted and killed in the kitchen of his house. A solicitor failed to issue a writ in time and deprived the plaintiff of the opportunity to pursue court proceedings.
Held: Damages were not . .
Cited – Sutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar CA 5-Feb-2002
Defendant employers appealed findings of liability for personal injuries consisting of an employee’s psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
Held: Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are . .
Cited – Rahman v Arearose Limited and Another, University College London, NHS Trust CA 15-Jun-2000
The claimant had suffered a vicious physical assault from which the claimant’s employers should have protected him, and an incompetently performed surgical operation. Three psychiatrists agreed that the aetiology of the claimant’s very severe . .
Cited – Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority HL 2-Jul-1988
The claimant (then 13) fell twelve feet in climbing a tree and sustained an acute traumatic fracture of the left femoral epiphysis. At hospital, his injury was not correctly diagnosed or treated for five days, and he went on to suffer a vascular . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cape Plc and Others, Re Companies Act 1985 ChD 16-Jun-2006
The court was asked to sanction a scheme of arrangements, and particularly to approve a proposed scheme which itself contained the power to make amendments to the scheme.
Held: The court did have power to sanction such a proposed scheme of . .
Cited – Brett v University of Reading CA 14-Feb-2007
The deceased’s personal representative sought damages after the death from mesothelioma after working for the defendant for many years. . .
Cited – Sanderson v Hull CA 5-Nov-2008
Insufficient proof of cause of infection
The claimant worked as a turkey plucker. She caught an infection (campylobacter enteritis) at work, and the employer now appealed against a finding of liability. The employer said that the only necessary protection was regular washing of hands. The . .
Cited – Wootton v J Docter Ltd and Another CA 19-Dec-2008
The claimant sought damages saying that the contraceptive pill dispensed by the defendant was not the one prescribed by her doctor, and that she had become pregnant and suffered the losses claimed namely care, expenses and loss of earnings flowing . .
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 . .
Cited – London Borough of Hackney v Sivanandan and Others EAT 27-May-2011
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Compensation
SEX DISCRIMINATION – Compensation
APPEAL
Council and a charity both supplied members to a recruitment panel which victimised the Claimant – Tribunal makes . .
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Cited – Employers’ Liability Insurance ‘Trigger’ Litigation: BAI (Run Off) Ltd v Durham and Others SC 28-Mar-2012
The court considered the liability of insurers of companies now wound up for mesothelioma injuries suffered by former employees of those companies, and in particular whether the 1930 Act could be used to impose liability. The insurers now appealed . .
Cited – Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241415

Denton Hall Legal Services and others v Fifield: CA 8 Mar 2006

The court gave guidance on the procedures to be adopted to avoid difficulties arising from factual differences between medical experts.
Buxton LJ discussed the status of quotations recorded by the doctor examining a claimant, saying: ‘What the doctor writes down as having been told him by the patient, as opposed to the opinion that he expresses on the basis of those statements, is not at that stage evidence of the making of the statement that he records.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, Lord Justice Buxton, Lord Justice Wall

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 169

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Charnock and Others v Rowan and Others CA 20-Jan-2012
14 passengers in a bus hit from behind at a slow speed had all claimed whiplash injury. The expert had said that the accepted speed required to produce such an injury was a change of 3mph, which would require an impact at 30mph, whereas the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238897

Littlefair, Williamson, and Beardall v Vinamul Ltd: CA 1 Feb 2006

The parties had been involved in personal injury litigation, which the defendants said had been compromised on a drop hands basis. The claimants wished to go ahead.
Held: The parties legal representatives had not sufficiently recorded their dealings. However notes on both sides of telephone conversations spelled out that the claimants were not proceedings with claims for one aspect of their injury, and that claim could not proceed.

Judges:

Latham LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 31

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238248

Grant v National Coal Board: HL 1956

The House considered the effect of a statutory provision that: ‘the roof and sides of every travelling road, outlet and working place shall be made secure’
Held: Lord Reid said: ‘I cannot see why it should matter just how the accident was caused provided that it was in fact caused by a breach of the section. I see no ground for imputing to Parliament an intention to make the mineowner liable for some of the consequences of breach but to relieve him of liability for others.’ and ‘The question whether an employer is liable to an employee for injuries caused to him by breach of a statutory duty depends on whether there can be implied from the terms of the statute imposing the duty an enactment that the employer shall be so liable. In general that is implied from the enactment of a duty in the interest of the safety of employees . .’

Judges:

Lord Reid

Citations:

[1956] AC 649

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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.

Health and Safety

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.538254

Baird v Thurrock Borough Council: CA 7 Nov 2005

The defendant council appealed a finding of negligence after a dustbinman had been injured when he was struck by a wheelie bin. He had said that a malfunction in the mechanism loading the wheelie bin caused him to be hit by one.
Held: The judge had failed to recount properly his findings on the evidence. Whilst judges were properly encouraged to keep their judgments brief, the parties had to be left in a position to assess how the decision had been reached. A judge does not have to deal with each and every point in issue, but must deal with the fundamental points. There had to be a re-trial.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Keene LJ, Gage LJ

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 1499

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bates v Malyon QBD 10-Oct-2008
The defendant had driven into the rear of the claimant’s car. The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim by the judge who said he had not discharged the burden of proof of negligence.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge had reached a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237491

Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority v Bassie: CA 1 Nov 2005

The defendant appealed the award of andpound;100,0000 damages for injury to the plaintiff’s knee in the course of his employment as a fireman. He had been training in the gym, and fell while running. The judge found that he had slipped on a surface of dust on the floor in breach of the Regulations.
Held: Simple mopping woud have been adequate to remove a known risk. The judgment could not be faulted.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1474

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 5(1) 12(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236367

Winterton v Regina: CACD 6 Nov 2018

Appeal against conviction for gross negligence manslaughter: ‘The question of available knowledge and risk is always to be judged objectively and prospectively as at the moment of breach, not but for the breach.’

Judges:

Lady Justice Macur DBE

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 2435

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kuddus v Regina CACD 16-May-2019
The defendant appealed his conviction for gross negligence manslaughter. He ran a takeaway food business. A meal was ordered by the victim through a third party website, adding that she suffered mild allergies. There was no evidence that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Health and Safety

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.628212

Haddow v Glasgow City Council: SCS 23 Nov 2005

Outer House – The pursuer sought damages from her employers, saying that she had slipped on a wet floor, and had not been provided with non-slip shoes.

Judges:

Lord MacPhail

Citations:

[2005] ScotCS CSOH – 157

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 4 10

Scotland, Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235245

Jakto Transport Ltd. v Derek Hall: CA 9 Nov 2005

The claimant alleged injury from use of a torque wrench, and succeeded. The employer appealed.
Held: Though the appeal failed, the judge should have been careful not to consider the expert’s evidence separately, and not first making preliminary findings of fact.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1327, Times 28-Nov-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mibanga v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Mar-2005
The court considered the proper approach to expert evidence when viewed alongside other evidence: Wilson J said ‘It seems to me to be axiomatic that a fact-finder must not reach his or her conclusion before surveying all the evidence relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.234690

B and Q Plc, Regina v: CACD 27 Sep 2005

The defendant company appealed against its conviction for a breach of the 1974 Act, arising from a fatal accident to a customer at retail premises. There had been a substantial contested trial. The appellants were convicted of some of the counts on the indictment, but not all. The company were fined a total of andpound;550,000 and ordered to pay the costs of andpound;250,000.
Held: The court dismissed the appeals against conviction and fines, but did reduce the order for costs.

Judges:

Thomas LJ, Grigson J, Rec Cardiff

Citations:

[2006] 1 WLR 328, [2005] EWCA Crim 2297

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Splain, Regina v CACD 12-Jan-2010
The defendant appealed against an order made for payment of all the prosecutor’s costs in full on his conviction for only some of the trade mark offences prosecuted against him.
Held: Where a defendant has been convicted on only some of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Health and Safety

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230311

Polestar Jowetts Ltd v Komori Ltd UK and Another: QBD 26 Jul 2005

The defendants sought to have struck out a claim under the 1992 Regulations to support a claim under s15(2) of the 1974 Act. They said that the 1992 Regulations had been made only under s2(2) and not under s15(1).
Held: The implementing regulations were made under specific sections, ‘and of all other powers enabling her in that behalf.’ However, ‘The 1992 regulations specifically identify s2(2) of the 1972 Act as the source of the power under which they are being made. In my judgment it is plain that the Secretary of State was proceeding on the basis that that power was sufficient to achieve the regulations’ purpose. And, as I have held, it is not to be inferred from the regulations themselves and their statutory setting that part of their purpose was to confer a right of suit for breach. It follows in my opinion that the words ‘all his other enabling powers’ are intended to refer to such of the Secretary of State’s other powers that would authorise the making of regulations that would have the same effect as if they were made under s2(2). In other words, if it had been intended that the regulations should confer a right of suit for breach, the regulations would have clearly declared that they were being made under the 1974 Act. In the absence of such a declaration, they cannot be taken to have been made under that Act. ‘ The action should be struck out.

Judges:

Field J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1674 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No.3073), Health and Safety at Work 1974 47(2), Interpretation Act 1978 5 SCh3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229285

Griffin and others v Clwyd Health Authority and others: CA 14 May 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 818

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Coad v Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority CA 17-Jul-1996
A nurse suffered a back injury in 1983 in the course of her employment. She left the employment of the health authority in either 1990 or 1991. The judge had accepted her evidence that she did not know that she had a right of action against her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Limitation

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.201050

Suzanne Bunning v G T Bunning and Sons Ltd: CA 27 Jul 2005

Judges:

Lord Justice Latham Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Maurice Kay

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 983

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Leave – Bunning v G T Bunning and Sons Limited CA 9-Feb-2005
Application for leave to appeal. Leave granted but claimant warned as to likelihood of success. . .
Appeal from – Bunning v G T Bunning and Sons Ltd EAT 1-Jul-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Contributory fault . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Health and Safety

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229024

Robb v Salamis (M and I) Limited: OHCS 16 Mar 2005

Judges:

Lady Cosgrove And Lord Penrose And Lord Reed

Citations:

[2005] ScotCS CSIH – 28, 2005 SLT 523

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

See Also – Salamis (Marine and Industrial) Limited v Douglas Forbes OHCS 14-Jul-2005
. .
Appeal from – 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.

Health and Safety

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228091

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 an entirely unexpected and unpredictable flood does not mean that a floor is not maintained in an efficient state: ‘the pipe which burst, although it may have been equipment, was not equipment a fault in which was liable to result in a failure to comply with any of the regulations, in particular regulation 5(1). This in turn means that the respondents in the present case were not, on the facts, in breach of regulation 5(1).’

Judges:

May LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 670

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, European Framework Directive (Council Directive 89/391/EEC) of 12 June 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Millar v Galashiels Gas Co Ltd; Galashiels Gas Company Ltd v O’Donnell HL 20-Jan-1949
A hoist mechanism failed, the employee was injured, and he sought damages from his employer under the Act.
Held: The section imposes an absolute obligation to maintain work equipment in an efficient state or in efficient working order. The . .
Cited – Latimer v AEC Limited HL 25-Jun-1953
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 . .
Cited – James Edward Beck v United Closures and Plastics Plc SCS 22-Jun-2001
Two heavy doors in which the pursuer trapped his hand were not within the definition of workplace, which contemplated open spaces, but did constitute work equipment in terms of the 1998 Regulations. . .
Cited – Stark v Post Office CA 2-Mar-2000
A component in a postman’s bicycle gave way even though the machine had been sensibly maintained and checked. He sought damages for his injuries.
Held: The duty imposed by the regulations was absolute, and an employee postal worker who was . .

Cited by:

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.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226977

Charles v Cardiff County Council: CA 18 Nov 2002

The claimant was assaulted whilst at work at a residential care home. She answered the door to visitors who were drunk. She appealed a refusal of her claim against her employers.
Held: The judge had sufficient evidence before him to establish that the absence of a chain on the door was not a breach of statutory duty. The appeal failed.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1753

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.217800

Regina v Jarvis Facilities Ltd: CACD 26 May 2005

The defendant company had been fined when a train was derauled as a result of the company’s failure properly to maintain rail track. It appealed the fine of andpound;400,000.
Held: Fines should properly be increased where the failure arose in the course of provision of a public service. However here had been no significant injury or damage. Even allowing for the need for deterrence the fine was reduced to andpound;275,000.

Judges:

Waller, LJ, hedley, Royce JJ

Citations:

Times 08-Jun-2005, [2005] EWCA Crim 1409

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Health and Safety

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226038

Garrett v Camden London Borough Council: CA 16 Mar 2001

The court considered a claim for work related stress. The claimant asserted that he had been harassed, intimidated and systematically undermined: ‘Many, alas, suffer breakdowns and depressive illnesses and a significant proportion could doubtless ascribe some at least some of their problems to the strains and stresses of their work situation: be it simply overworking, the tension of difficult relationships, career prospect worries, fears or feelings of discrimination or harassment, to take some examples. Unless, however, there was a real risk of breakdown which the claimant’s employers ought reasonably to have foreseen and they ought properly to have averted there can be no liability.’ (Simon Brown LJ)

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 395, [2001] All ER (D) 202

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Walker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994
The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust etc CA 19-Jan-2005
The court considered the liability of employers for stress injury to several employees.
Held: Though the principles of awarding damages for stress related psychiatric injury are the same as those for physical injury, the issues have still . .
Cited – Banks v Ablex Ltd CA 24-Feb-2005
The claimant appealed denial of her claim for damages for psychological injury. She complained that her employer had failed to prevent her and other female employees being bullied by a co-worker, and they committed a breach of statutory duty in . .
Cited – D v Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd QBD 23-May-2006
The claimant sought damages for stress incurred at work. She had suffered post natal depression and received counselling through her work and recovered. She suffered a second bout of depression after the birth of another child, but again was thought . .
Cited – Helen Green v DB Group Services (UK) Ltd QBD 1-Aug-2006
The claimant sought damages from her former employers, asserting that workplace bullying and harassment had caused injury to her health. She had had a long term history of depression after being abused as a child, and the evidence was conflicting, . .
Cited – Clark v The Chief Constable of Essex Police QBD 18-Sep-2006
The officer had retired on ill health grounds, and now sought damages from his chief constable saying that the duties imposed on him had been excessive, and had caused his injury by negligence, and that he had been bullied by co-workers and had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Employment

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222973

Mccook v Lobo and others: CA 19 Nov 2002

The defendant was the occupier of premises. He did not direct how the work should be done and was not present at the time the work was being performed.
Held: He had not been in control of the relevant work. Judge LJ referred to Regulation 4(2) of the 1996 Regulations and said: ‘The requisite level of control before the duty does arise, however, is linked to the way in which construction work is carried out and it is confined to construction work within the individual’s control. For this purpose the obvious person who controls the way in which construction work on site is carried out is an employer. The employer owes express duties under regulation 4(1). That, therefore, identifies the starting point. But someone who is not an employer may also be bound by the statutory obligation under regulation 4(2). Whether the appropriate level of control over the work is or should be exercised by an individual other than an employer so as to create the duty to comply with the obligations under regulation 4(2) is, in my judgment, a question of fact. It is not answered affirmatively by demonstrating that an individual has control over the site in a general sense as an occupier, or that as the occupier of the site he was entitled to ask or require a contractor to remove obvious hazards from the site. The required control is related to control over the work of construction’
Hale LJ underlined that the issue of control was an issue of fact, saying: ‘Regulation 4(2) of the 1996 Regulations to my mind depends entirely on the question of factual control.’

Judges:

Judge LJ, Hale LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1760, [2003] ICR 89

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Ferguson v Welsh HL 29-Oct-1987
The plaintiff sought damages for personal injury. A council had engaged a competent contractor to carry out demolition works. Unknown to the council, the contractor sub-contracted the works to two brothers who worked in a highly dangerous manner. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Gray v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd and others QBD 3-Mar-2006
The deceased, a maintenance engineer died after falling through a skylight at work. The court considered the respective liabilities of his employer and the landowner. . .
Cited – Gray v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd and others QBD 3-Mar-2006
The deceased, a maintenance engineer died after falling through a skylight at work. The court considered the respective liabilities of his employer and the landowner. . .
Cited – Kmiecic v Isaacs QBD 12-Mar-2010
The claimant sought damages after suffering injury when falling from a ladder working on the uninsured builder’s site. He sued the owners of the property, saying that by refusing to allow or pay for the work to be conducted in safer ways, she had . .
Cited – Barrett v Kirklees Metropolitan Council Admn 12-Mar-2010
The claimant challenged the policy of the defendant to pay support to special guardians appointed under the 2002 Act at two thirds only of the rate it paid in fostering allowance.
Held: The policy was a substantial and insufficiently justified . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Construction, Health and Safety

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.217850

Bunning v G T Bunning and Sons Limited: CA 9 Feb 2005

Application for leave to appeal. Leave granted but claimant warned as to likelihood of success.

Judges:

Lord Justice Wall

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 104

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju CA 11-Nov-2004
Final Straw Act – Non-Trivial
The claimant had been involved in protracted disputes with the respondent. The respondent appealed a finding of constructive dismissal and victimisation. He had attended a tribunal hearing and the employer had refused to pay his salary whilst he was . .
Appeal from – Bunning v G T Bunning and Sons Ltd EAT 1-Jul-2003
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Contributory fault . .

Cited by:

Leave – Suzanne Bunning v G T Bunning and Sons Ltd CA 27-Jul-2005
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Health and Safety

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222784

Robinson and Another v Northumbria Police Authority and Another: CA 12 Oct 2001

Two police officers sought damages after their patrol car was trapped and attacked by youths. Senior officers were aware of such attacks, and considered arrangements for different windscreens.
Held: The risk was forseeable, and given the additional known risks faced by police officers, it was reasonable for the authority to have acted.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1556

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Health and Safety, Negligence

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218461

Marks and Spencer Plc v Palmer: CA 9 Oct 2001

The claimant had tripped against a weather strip which protruded by less than 1 cm above the surface of doorway of the staff exit from one of the defendant’s stores. It was a permanent fixture and, as such, was part of the construction of the floor. It had never previously given rise to any accidents or complaints. At first instance, the recorder had found that the simple fact that Mrs Palmer had tripped over the weather strip showed that the floor was unsuitable and in breach of regulation 12(1).
Held: The Court considered whether a floor in which a weather strip had been inserted was of such construction as to breach Regulation 12(1), and gave guidance as to approach to be taken by a court to the question of suitability under Regulation 12(1).

Judges:

Schiemann, Waller LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1528

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rogers v George Blair 1971
The court considered the suitability of some goggles as a means of protecting a workman’s eyes.
Held: To be suitable, the protection need not make it impossible for an accident to occur but it must make it highly unlikely. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Jetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others SC 22-Apr-2015
The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218442

Betts v Tokley: CA 18 Jan 2002

The appellant fell whilst leaving the premises of the respondent, her employer, and sustained a serious fracture to her humerus. The County Court Judge concluded that she had fallen down some steps which should have been lit. He held that the respondent was accordingly in breach of his ordinary duty of care at common law, and the common duty of care owed to the appellant as lawful visitor. He also found her contributorily negligent to the extent of 60%. She now appealed against that apportionment.
Held: The appeal failed. She had ‘to establish that no reasonable judge could have come to such a conclusion if he is to succeed. The statement of facts which I have related indicates, of itself, that the appellant was clearly at fault in the way she approached the dark area. As the judge essentially put it, she pressed on regardless of the risk, and the risk was the risk of tripping or falling, which is what ultimately happened to her.’

Judges:

Buxton, Latham LJJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 52

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Occupier’s Liability Act 1997, Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216683

Pfeiffer etc v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV (3): ECJ 5 Oct 2004

ECJ Social policy – Protection of the health and safety of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Scope – Emergency workers in attendance in ambulances in the framework of an emergency service run by the German Red Cross – Definition of – road transport – Maximum weekly working time – Principle – Direct effect – Derogation – Conditions

Citations:

C-397/01, [2004] EUECJ C-397/01

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 93/104/EC

European, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215891

Pfeiffer etc v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV 3: ECJ 5 Oct 2004

ECJ Social policy – Protection of the health and safety of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Scope – Emergency workers in attendance in ambulances in the framework of an emergency service run by the German Red Cross – Definition of – road transport – Maximum weekly working time – Principle – Direct effect – Derogation – Conditions

Citations:

C-400/01, [2004] EUECJ C-400/01

Links:

Bailii

European, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215894

Duthie v Bath and North East Somerset Council: CA 9 Jun 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1194

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – W A Duthie v Bath and North East Somerset Council EAT 29-Apr-2003
The claimant said he had not been given time off from work to attend relevant health and safety training courses. The company responded that the regulations had been repealed, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction.
Held: Jurisdiction was . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – W A Duthie v Bath and North East Somerset Council EAT 29-Apr-2003
The claimant said he had not been given time off from work to attend relevant health and safety training courses. The company responded that the regulations had been repealed, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction.
Held: Jurisdiction was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215975

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 party claiming the exception to establish it. (Majority) Where a linguistic construction of the statute could not clearly indicate upon whom the burden should lie the court should look to other considerations to determine the intention of Parliament such as the mischief at which the Act was aimed and practical considerations affecting the burden of proof and, in particular, the ease or difficulty that the respective parties would encounter in discharging the burden.
Lord Wilberforce: ‘the orthodox principle (common to both the criminal and the civil law) that exceptions, etc., are to be set up by those who rely on them.’

Judges:

Lord Wilberforce, Lord Guest, Lord Upjohn

Citations:

1967 SC (HL) 79, [1968] AC 107

Statutes:

Factories Act 1961 29(1), Mines and Quarries Act 1954 48(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Davidson v Lothian and Borders Fire Board IHCS 18-Jul-2003
The pursuer, a firefighter, sought damages for injury incurred during a drill. The drill involved manipulating a ladder, which was caught by the wind, a known risk in such exercises.
Held: The defenders had failed to discharge the burden on . .
Cited – Kerr v Department for Social Development (Northern Ireland) HL 6-May-2004
Wrongful Refusal of Benefits
The claimant was estranged from his family, but claimed re-imbursement of the expenses for his brother’s funeral. The respondent required him to establish that none of his siblings was in a better position than he to pay for the funeral, but he had . .
Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Cited – Pennington v Surrey County Council and Surrey Fire and Rescue Service CA 9-Nov-2006
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Hunt (Richard) HL 1987
The court objected to the insistence on leaving the burden throughout a prosecution on the defendant on the ground that ‘the discharge of an evidential burden proves nothing – it merely raises an issue’. The House emphasised the special nature of . .
Cited – Clarke v Regina CACD 23-Apr-2008
The defendant appealed his conviction for providing immigration services when not qualified to do so. . .
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 – 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 . .
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.

Scotland, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.184719

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 individual or a corporation, who is in a position to exercise complete control over the matters to which the duties extend. An employer can control the conditions of work of his employees and the manner in which he conducts his undertaking.’
Lord Goff said ‘for the purpose of considering whether the defendant has discharged the onus which rests upon him to establish that it was not reasonably practicable for him, in the circumstances, to eliminate the relevant risk, there has to be taken into account (inter alia) the likelihood of that risk eventuating. The degree of likelihood is an important element in the equation. It follows that the effect is to bring into play forseeability in the sense of likelihood of the incidence of the relevant risk, and that the likelihood of such risk eventuating has to be weighed against the means, including cost, necessary to eliminate it.’

Judges:

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

Citations:

[1990] 1 AC 619

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Edwards v National Coal Board CA 1949
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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Associated Octel Ltd HL 14-Nov-1996
The appellants operated a chemical plant. When the plant was shut down for its annual maintenance, an independent firm repaired a tank lining. An employee of that firm was working by electric light. He had to clean the tank with acetone and resin. . .
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 – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.184757

Sussex Ambulance NHS Trust v King: CA 5 Jul 2002

The claimant was an ambulance worker. He had been assisting carrying a patient down stairs in a chair. He was injured when his colleague lost his grip, and he suddenly bore the full weight of the patient and chair. He alleged that under the regulations and the directive, the employer should have considered requesting the patient to be moved by the Fire Service.
Held: There was nothing to suggest that it would have been practicable to call the Fire Service. Giving greater prominence to that possibility in training would not have made a difference in this particular case. Though this case failed, another case might succeed for failure to provide appropriate equipment for the task to be undertaken.

Judges:

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President, Lord Justice Buxton and Lady Justice Hale

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 953

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Manual Handling Directive 1990 (90/269/EEC), Manual Handling Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 2793)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Walker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994
The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.174303

Levesley v Thomas Firth and John Brown Ltd: CA 1953

In the course of some loading operations a block of iron was left temporarily protruding three inches out into a gangway, used as a means of access.

Citations:

[1953] 1 WLR 1206, [1953] 2 All ER 866

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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.

Health and Safety

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.440374

Speed v Swift: CA 1943

Lord Greene MR considered what was meant by system when considering an employer’s duty to provide a safe system of working: ‘I do not venture to suggest a definition of what is meant by system, but it includes, in my opinion, or may include the physical lay-out of the job – the setting of the stage, so to speak – the sequence in which the work is to be carried out, the provision in proper cases of warnings and notices, and the issue of special instructions. A system may be adequate for the whole course of the job or it may have to be modified or improved to meet circumstances which arise. Such modifications or improvements appear to me equally to fall under the head of system.’

Judges:

Lord Greene MR

Citations:

[1943] KB 557

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.272567

Creed v McGeoch and Sons Ltd: 1955

The question of who is an occupier will depend on the particular facts of each case and especially upon the nature and extent of the occupation or control in fact enjoyed or exercised by the defendant over the premises. The defendant contractor was held to be the occupier only of the length of the road under construction but not the land flanking the road.

Judges:

Ashworth J

Citations:

[1955] 1 WLR 1005, [1955] 3 All ER 123

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Health and Safety

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.181198

Home Office v Lowles: CA 29 Jul 2004

The defendant appealed against finding of liability. The claimant, an officer ar Armley Prison had been redirected to a side entrance. There was a ramp, but at the top was a two inch step. The parties had disputed the exact circumstances of the fall.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The Recorder approached regulation 12(3) by saying simply that he was satisfied that the threshold constituted an obstruction, and that it was therefore for the Home Office to satisfy him that it was not reasonably practicable to avoid or remove the threshold, which it had not attempted to do. I consider, as I have said, that the question whether there was an obstruction which ‘may’ cause a person to slip, trip or fall is one which itself involves a balancing of relevant factors relating to the nature and extent of any risk for persons using the floor or traffic route. But the Recorder had already considered such factors in making his assessment under regulation 12(1), and in the light of that assessment I do not think that he can, on the facts of this case, be criticised for proceeding straightaway to a conclusion that there was a relevant obstruction for the purposes of regulation 12(3). I do not see any reason why the unexpected threshold, constituting a step of unusual intermediate height at the top of a ramp, for which there was no apparent reason, should not in law be regarded as an obstruction in the floor or the surface of the traffic route.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Wall

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 985

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 SI No. 3004, Directive 89/654/EEC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 – Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199736

Hammond v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis and others: CA 11 Jun 2004

The claimant mechanic was employed by the Commissioner of Police. He was working on the wheel of a police dog van when the shearing of a wheel bolt caused him to suffer injury. The question was whether the van was ‘work equipment’ within the meaning of the 1992 regulations, which defined ‘work equipment’: ‘any machinery, appliance, apparatus or tool and any assembly of components which, in order to achieve a common end, are arranged and controlled so that they function as a whole.’ The scope of the duty is defined by regulation 4(1): ‘The requirements imposed by these Regulations on an employer shall apply in respect of work equipment provided for use or used by any of his employees who is at work.’
Held: May LJ said: ‘Although the definition of what may be work equipment is to be found in regulation 2, the ambit of the expression ‘work equipment’ in these Regulations is determined by regulation 4 . . This indicates . . that the Regulations are concerned with what may loosely be described as the tools of the trade provided by an employer to an employee to enable the employee to carry out his work . . The van might well be work equipment of a policeman driving it, but not of the police mechanic repairing it.’

Judges:

May LJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 830, [2004] ICR 1467

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Not approved – Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd and others HL 2-Jul-2008
The deceased worked for the defendants on an oil rig. He was injured by a door closer he was attempting to repair. The defendants denied that the mechanism was equipment within the Regulations.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The door closer was . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Abdul and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Feb-2011
The defendants appealed against convictions for using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour . . within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. He had attended a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198499

BT Fleet Ltd v McKenna: Admn 17 Mar 2005

The company appealed a notice requiring them to avoid th eneed for its employees to carry out manual handling operations.
Held: The notice was inadequate, and the magistrates had been wrong to try to improve it by adding to it. The inspector had been ready to consider an alternative such as training but this had not been included within the notice. The notice served here could not allow the person served to know what was wrong, why it was wrong, and what was expected of him to correct it. Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Evans-Lombe J

Citations:

Times 05-Apr-2005, [2005] EWHC 387 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 21, Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Miller-Mead v Minister for Housing and Local Government and Another CA 1963
The court considered the power of the Secretary of state to vary or amend an enforcement notice under the Act.
Held: He could amend a notice which was otherwise invalid but not one which was upon its face a nullity. Lord Denning MR said: ‘He . .
Cited – Bexley London Borough Council v Gardner Merchant plc QBD 1993
The local authority brought complaint against the company that they failed to supply appropriate wash hand basins for staff near working areas. A number of notices were served each of which specified measures which should be taken. The appellants . .
Cited – Ormston v Horsham Rural District Council 1966
Lord Denning said: ‘An Enforcement notice is not to be regarded with the strict eye of a conveyancer. An inaccuracy or mis-description does not make it a nullity . . so long as an Enforcement notice tells a man fairly what he has done wrong and what . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.223636

Mcfarlane v Ferguson Shipbuilders Limited: OHCS 16 Mar 2004

Judges:

Lady Smith

Citations:

[2004] ScotCS 68

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Cited by:

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.

Scotland, Health and Safety

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195828

Donachie v The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police: CA 7 Apr 2004

The claimant had been asked to work under cover. The surveillance equipment he was asked to use was faulty, requiring him to put himself at risk repeatedly to maintain it resulting in a stress disorder and a stroke.
Held: There was a direct line of causation between the known faults in the equipment, and the failure to operate a safe system of work, and the stroke. The court had erred in applying Sutherland v Hatton, and should have considered whether the claimant was a primary or secondary victim. He was a primary victim. The injury was foreseeable and the appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Latham Lady Justice Arden

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 405

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Sutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar CA 5-Feb-2002
Defendant employers appealed findings of liability for personal injuries consisting of an employee’s psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
Held: Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are . .
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 . .
Cited – Page v Smith HL 12-May-1995
The plaintiff was driving his car when the defendant turned into his path. Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. The Plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time . .
Cited – Young v Charles Church (Southern) Ltd CA 24-Apr-1997
Presence within the range of foreseeable physical injury is a necessary attribute of a primary victim. . .
Cited – Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991
The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. They had watched on television, as their relatives and friends, 96 in all, died at a football match, for the safety of which the defendants were responsible. The defendant police service had not . .
Cited – McFarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993
The court will not extend a duty of care to mere bystanders of horrific events. Nor is any duty of care owed to a rescuer lacking ordinary courage. Whether a person is to be regarded as a rescuer will be a question of fact to be decided on the . .
Cited – Nobes, Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Schofield CA 14-May-1998
A police constable was entitled to claim damages for nervous shock after a co-officer unexpectedly and unlawfully fired off shots from a gun they had found as part of a search. . .
Cited – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
Cited – Malcolm v Broadhurst QBD 1970
The principle of foreseeability of psychiatric injury is subject to the qualification that, where the psychiatric injury suffered by the plaintiff is consequential upon physical injury for which the defendant is responsible in law, the defendant . .
Cited – Sutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar CA 5-Feb-2002
Defendant employers appealed findings of liability for personal injuries consisting of an employee’s psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
Held: Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are . .
Cited – Dulieu v White and Sons KBD 1901
A pregnant barmaid suffered nervous shock causing her to give premature birth as a result of the tortfeasor’s horse van bursting into her bar at the Bonner Arms in Bethnal Green from the roadway. The defendant pleaded that the damages claimed were . .
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 . .
Cited – McLoughlin v O’Brian HL 6-May-1982
The plaintiff was the mother of a child who died in an horrific accident, in which her husband and two other children were also injured. She was at home at the time of the accident, but went to the hospital immediately when she had heard what had . .
Cited – McGhee v National Coal Board HL 1973
The claimant who was used to emptying pipe kilns at a brickworks was sent to empty brick kilns where the working conditions were much hotter and dustier. His employers failed, in breach of their duty, to provide him with washing facilities after his . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195491

Gilmour v East Renfrewshire Council: OHCS 5 Dec 2003

The pursuer, a teacher slipped on a potato chip on a ramp leading from the school kitchen.
Held: Given the nature of the flooring and the slope of the ramp there was a real risk of slipping, which was increased by the presence of the chip. The defenders were in breach of an absolute duty under regulation 5(1). Regulation 12(3) had also been infringed in that the chip presented a real risk of injury, and it would have been reasonably practicable for the defenders to have kept the surface free of such dangerous substances.
J Gordon Reid QC said that it is ‘common in personal injury litigation for a set of circumstances to fall within the scope of several parts of the same regulations or even within the scope of several different sets of regulations.’

Judges:

J Gordon Reid QC

Citations:

[2003] ScotCS 302, 2004 Rep Lr 40

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 5(1) 12(3)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See Also – Gilmour v East Renfrewshire Council SCS 29-May-2002
. .

Cited by:

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.

Health and Safety

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190765

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 foreseeable that the absence of a screen may leave the way open to injury to the driver. A consideration of the degree of risk involved in the absence of a screen is also necessary in assessing suitability’.

Judges:

Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice May Lord Justice Pill

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1856

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Pennington v Surrey County Council and Surrey Fire and Rescue Service CA 9-Nov-2006
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189921

King v Global Marine (KK) Ltd: SCS 13 Dec 2002

Action at the instance of the widow, the two children and the parents of the late Richard King. It arises from a fatal accident that the deceased suffered on board an oil rig owned and operated by the first defenders in the course of his employment with the second defenders.

Citations:

[2002] ScotCS 316

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189743

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 its regulations in replacement of any earlier legislation. The 1974 Act, it said was therefore outdated.
Held: The employer could be prosecuted either under the 1974 Act or under the machinery regulations. The Regulations were designed to implement the Directive by working alongside the 1974 Act, rather than by replacing it, and the Regulations explicitly preserved the power to prosecute under the 1974 Act. However, the Secretary had failed to notify the EC of the prohibition of the machinery, and therefore the prosecution must in any event fail.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett

Citations:

[2002] UKHL 55, Times 24-Oct-2003, Gazette 20-Nov-2003, [2004] 2 All ER 555, [2004] Eu LR 134, [2003] ICR 1475

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 6, Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 29(2), Directive 98/37/EC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Criminal proceedings against X ECJ 12-Dec-1996
(Judgment) Criminal proceedings may not be brought in respect of conduct not clearly defined as culpable. . .
Appeal from – Regina (on the application of Junttan Oy) v Bristol Magistrates’ Court QBD 2002
‘I have found this issue one of considerable difficulty and finely balanced. However, I have come to the conclusion that it is inappropriate and wrong for the Health and Safety Executive to prosecute for an offence under section 6 of the 1974 Act . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina (on the application of Junttan Oy) v Bristol Magistrates’ Court QBD 2002
‘I have found this issue one of considerable difficulty and finely balanced. However, I have come to the conclusion that it is inappropriate and wrong for the Health and Safety Executive to prosecute for an offence under section 6 of the 1974 Act . .
Cited – Vibixa Ltd, Polestar Jowetts Ltd v Komori UK Ltd and Another, Spectral Technology Ltd CA 9-May-2006
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 . .
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 – Secretary of State for Justice v Slee EAT 19-Jul-2007
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal
Maternity Rights and Parental Leave – Sex discrimination
The Claimant was employed as a Magistrates’ Clerk and she brought successful claims to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, European

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187097

Bonser v UK Coal Mining Ltd: CA 9 Jun 2003

The employer appealed a finding that it was responsible in negligence to a staff member for stress related injury at work. The claimant had worked in the coal industry for 20 years, but she had then been made redundant. The defendants took her on as their Technical Support and Training Manager. Her reference said that she ‘would not be particularly good in a highly stressful environment but she is good at dealing with IT users, training and communication.’ She had a pre-existing emotional vulnerability but this was not apparent to the defendants.
Held: Lord Phillips MR said: ‘An employer will be in breach of duty to an employee if the employer subjects the employee to severe pressure of work in circumstances where the employer knows, or ought reasonably to foresee, that this is likely to cause the employee to suffer some form of breakdown which results in psychiatric injury. Happily most employees are sufficiently robust to withstand the stress of a heavy workload. Thus it is normally necessary to demonstrate, before breach of duty can be established, that the employer had particular reason to apprehend the danger that such injury would be caused to the individual employee.’ The defendants did not have reason to apprehend the danger and accordingly were not liable when she broke down.

Judges:

Lord Phillips MR

Citations:

Times 30-Jun-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 1296, [2004] IRLR 164

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar CA 5-Feb-2002
Defendant employers appealed findings of liability for personal injuries consisting of an employee’s psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
Held: Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust etc CA 19-Jan-2005
The court considered the liability of employers for stress injury to several employees.
Held: Though the principles of awarding damages for stress related psychiatric injury are the same as those for physical injury, the issues have still . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186535

Holtby v Brigham and Cowan (Hull) Ltd: CA 6 Apr 2000

A claimant who sought damages for injuries suffered by the ingestion of asbestos whilst working for one employer, but had also worked for other periods for other employers where similar activities had been involved, had the onus in the claim to prove causation. It might be impossible to apportion the damage exactly, but he must demonstrate a substantial contribution from the defendant. Having been found responsible in this way, the employer would be responsible only to the extent of his contribution to the asbestosis. Each tortfeasor should be responsible only for the proportion which its exposure contributed to the damage.

Judges:

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Clarke

Citations:

Times 12-Apr-2000, Gazette 11-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 111, [2000] 3 All ER 421

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Thompson v Smiths Shiprepairers (North Shields) Ltd QBD 1984
The test to be applied in determining the time at which an employer’s failure to provide protection constituted actionable negligence was what would have been done at any particular time by a reasonable and prudent employer who was properly but not . .

Cited by:

Cited – Environment Agency v Ellis CA 17-Oct-2008
The claimant was injured working for the appellants. The appellants now appealed the finding that they were responsible saying that other factors contributed to the injury, and in particular that he had fallen at home. The claimant said that that . .
Cited – Horsley v Cascade Insulation Services Ltd and Others QBD 18-Nov-2009
The claimant sought damages after contracting asbestosis through employment exposure with the defendants. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Damages

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185908

Gallagher v Kleinwort Benson (Trustees) Limited and others: SCS 12 Mar 2003

Judges:

Lord Reed

Citations:

[2003] ScotCS 66, 2003 SCLR 384

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Framework Directive (89/31)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

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.

European, Health and Safety

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183992

Fytche v Wincanton Logistics Plc: CA 12 May 2003

A milk lorry driver was issued with protective boots. Stuck in a snowstorm, he tried to dig himself out. The boots leaked and he suffered frostbite.
Held: The compulsory element under the regulations is taken into account in the standard of care which the employer must observe to comply with his duty of care to the employees. The claimant recognised that he could not succeed in proving a breach of the duty of care, and his claim failed.
Waller LJ said: ‘I stress the standard of care will be a high one. Where the employer is asking the employee to wear particular footwear or clothing in place of the employee’s own, I would suggest that rightly the court would impose a high duty on an employer. But in the circumstances of this case the tiny hole was undiscoverable either by the employers or the claimant and the findings of the recorder negatived any such breach.’

Judges:

Waller LJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 874, [2003] ICR 1582

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Fytche v Wincanton Logistics Plc HL 1-Jul-2004
The claimant was employed as a milk truck driver. He was issued with a pair of boots capped to protect his feet from impact. In a snowstorm, and against company advice, he sough to dig himself out. The boots leaked and he suffered frostbite. He . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Fytche v Wincanton Logistics Plc HL 1-Jul-2004
The claimant was employed as a milk truck driver. He was issued with a pair of boots capped to protect his feet from impact. In a snowstorm, and against company advice, he sough to dig himself out. The boots leaked and he suffered frostbite. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184059

Hislop v Lynx Express Parcels: IHCS 3 Apr 2003

The claimant was injured when, after stopping the vehicle he was driving for his employers, he was scalded when the radiator cap flew off. He appealed against the dismissal of his claim on the basis that he had been unable to show any fault.
Held: The question was not whether a defect could be identified, but whether or not the equipment, the vehicle and its parts, had been maintained in efficient working order and in good repair.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Osborne and Lord Weir

Citations:

Times 17-Apr-2003, [2003] ScotCS 98

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2932) 6(1)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Millar v Galashiels Gas Co Ltd; Galashiels Gas Company Ltd v O’Donnell HL 20-Jan-1949
A hoist mechanism failed, the employee was injured, and he sought damages from his employer under the Act.
Held: The section imposes an absolute obligation to maintain work equipment in an efficient state or in efficient working order. The . .
Cited – Stark v Post Office CA 2-Mar-2000
A component in a postman’s bicycle gave way even though the machine had been sensibly maintained and checked. He sought damages for his injuries.
Held: The duty imposed by the regulations was absolute, and an employee postal worker who was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183965

McDermid v Nash Dredging and Reclamation Co Ltd: HL 2 Jul 1986

The Court explained the duty of an employer towards his employees as regards their safety: ‘an employer owes to his employee a duty to exercise reasonable care to ensure that the system of work provided for him is a safe one. Secondly, a provision of a safe system of work has two aspects: (a) the devising of such a system and (b) the operation of it. Thirdly, the duty concerned has been described alternatively as either personal or non-delegable. The meaning of these expressions is not self-evident and needs explaining. The essential characteristic of the duty is that if it is not performed it is no defence for the employer to show that he delegated his performance to a person, whether his servant or not his servant, whom he reasonably believed to be competent to perform it. Despite such delegation the employer is liable for the non-performance of the duty.’

Judges:

Lord Brandon

Citations:

[1986] 3 WLR 45, [1986] 2 All ER 676 CA, [1986] QB 965, [1986] UKHL 5

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority CA 1986
A prematurely-born baby was the subject of certain medical procedures, in the course of which a breach of duty occurred. to ensure that the correct amount was administered it was necessary to insert a catheter into an umbilical artery so that his . .
Cited – Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001
The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. He claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing to come to his assistance.
Held: If a police officer owes a duty of care to . .
Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Health and Safety

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182973

Ziemniak v ETPM Deep Sea Ltd: CA 7 May 2003

A seaman was injured taking part in a safety drill aboard ship. The defendant had been found not to be negligent, but the claimant alleged breach of statutory duty under the Regulations.
Held: Groves v Wimborne clearly established that parliament was to be taken to have intended to proivide a remedy in damages for breach of the regulations. The section intended bring working conditions on board a ship into line with conditions prevailing on land. Todd could properly be distinguished, and an action for damages would lie.

Judges:

Aldous, Mummery, Rix LJJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 636, Times 15-May-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) Regulations 1980 (1980 No 538) 43(10)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Todd and Others v Adams and Another CA 18-Apr-2002
The boat owners had failed to comply with the 1975 safety rules, and seamen died. The boat owners relied upon the restriction on damages in the 1995 Act, and the seamen’s families argued that the failure to apply the safety rules removed that . .
Applied – Groves v Lord Wimborne CA 1898
The court heard a case dealing with a claim for breach of a duty to fence dangerous machinery under the Act.
Held: Legislation protecting safety in the workplace gives rise to an action by a person for whom the protection was intended for . .
Cited – Butler (or Black) v Fife Coal Co, Ltd HL 19-Dec-1911
The court considered whether a civil remedy existed for breach of statutory duty. Lord Kinnear said: ‘If the duty be established, I do not think there is any serious question as to civil liability. There is no reasonable ground for maintaining that . .
Cited – X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995
Liability in Damages on Statute Breach to be Clear
Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give rise . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181942