A company is not vicariously liable for the failure of the Captain of ship to comply with the section. The section was not framed so as to appear to give rise to criminal liability of an employer for acts of an employee in such circumstances. The owner did not have personal vicarious liability for everything done in operating the ship.
Gazette 24-Mar-1993
England and Wales
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.89075
The employers engaged contractors to repair a building. The employers were going to buy new asbestos sheets for the purpose but the contractors offered to remove some from an adjacent disused factory. The employers obtained the permission of the owner. Their projects manager inspected the site with the contractors and warned them to be careful. They offered to supply the contractors with equipment. One of the contractors fell through a skylight on the roof of the disused building and was killed. The employers were charged under section 3(1) and the justices convicted. They said that it was not necessary for the employers to control the site on which the work was done to be liable. They were in a position to give specific instructions to the contractors as to how the work should be carried on. They therefore owed a duty under section 3(1).
Held: The conviction was set aside. The court was ‘unable to accept that the mere capacity or opportunity to exercise control over an activity is enough to bring that activity within the ambit of the employer’s conduct of his undertaking. Before he can say that an activity is within his conduct of his undertaking, the employer must, in my judgment, either exercise some actual control over it or be under a duty to do so. If the principal chooses to leave the independent contractor to do the work in the way he thinks fit, I consider that the work is not within the ambit of the principal’s conduct of his undertaking. It is wholly the contractor’s undertaking.’
Smith J
Times 08-Feb-1994, [1994] 4 All ER 1037
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1)
England and Wales
Doubted – 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.
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88794
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 statutes that the courts should seek to construe them so as to produce a just and fair law. The courts presume that Parliament intended to legislate justly, fairly and reasonably Adult swimmers with full knowledge of the risks were free to take them. The risks arose from their choice to take them, not from the permission which might be given.
Stanley Burnton J
[2005] EWHC 713 (Admin), Times 19-May-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 2930
Health and Safety At Work Act 1974 3, Hampstead Heath Act 1871 16
England and Wales
Cited – Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed liability, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
Held: The council’s . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 29-Nov-2001
The applicant was terminally ill, and entirely dependent upon her husband for care. She foresaw a time when she would wish to take her own life, but would not be able to do so without the active assistance of her husband. She sought a proleptic . .
Cited – Regina v British Steel Plc CACD 31-Dec-1994
British Steel employed two sub-contractors to work in moving a steel tower under their supervision. One platform fell on one of the sub-contractors, killing him. British Steel claimed they had delegated their responsibilities under the Act, and were . .
Cited – Dickenson v Fletcher 1873
A penal statute should receive a strict or restrictive interpretation. Brett J said: ‘Those who contend that a penalty may be inflicted must show that the words of the Act distinctly enact that it shall be incurred under the present circumstances. . .
Cited – Francis v Yiewsley and West Drayton Urban District Council 1958
The claimant was said to have failed to comply with an enforcement notice.
Held: A person prosecuted for failure to discontinue a use in accordance with an enforcement notice could challenge the validity of the notice before the criminal court . .
Cited – Regina v Board of Trustees of the Science Museum CA 26-May-1993
The appellants were convicted of failing to conduct their undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, persons not in their employment were not exposed to risks to their health and safety. One of their buildings . .
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 – Ratcliff v McConnell and Jones CA 30-Nov-1998
The claimant, a nineteen year old student climbed into a college property in the early hours of the morning, and then took a running dive into the shallow end of a swimming pool, suffering severe injuries. He was accompanied by friends and had been . .
Cited – Darby v National Trust CA 29-Jan-2001
The claimant’s husband drowned swimming in a pond on the National Trust estate at Hardwick Hall. Miss Rebecca Kirkwood, the Water and Leisure Safety Consultant to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, gave uncontradicted evidence, which . .
Cited – Weld-Blundell v Stephens HL 1920
A physical cause may be irrelevant as a matter of law. The law is concerned not with causation, but with responsibility. Lord Sumner said: ‘more than half of human kind are tale-bearers by nature’.
Where a legal wrong was committed without loss . .
Cited – Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Limited CA 27-Feb-2003
The claimant had decided to go for a midnight swim, but was injured diving and hitting a submerged bed. The landowner appealed a finding that it was 25% liable. The claimant asserted that the defendant knew that swimmers were common.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina v Associated Octel Ltd CACD 3-Aug-1994
The company was said to have failed in its duties under section 3(1) of the 1974 Act.
Held: The maintenance and cleaning of a company’s premises can be part of its undertaking, for which its managers are criminally responsible, even if outside . .
Cited – M’Lean v Bell 1932
The House considered liability in negligence after a motor accident.
Lord Wright said: ‘In one sense, but for the negligence of the pursuer (if she was negligent) in attempting to cross the road, she would not have been struck, and as a . .
Cited – Austin Rover Group Ltd v Her Majesty’s Inspector of Factories HL 1990
The relevant factors in the phrase the words ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ are the foreseeable risk of injury and the cost of the preventive measures. ‘Sections 2 and 3 impose duties in relation to safety on a single person, whether an . .
Cited – Norris v W Moss and Sons Ltd CA 1954
The employer had erected scaffolding in a way which infringed the Regulations.
Held: He was not to be held liable to his employee who had noticed the defect and set about remedying it negligently and was injured as a result. The breach of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.224387
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claims for loss of hearing after being employed by the defendants.
Garnham J
[2019] EWHC 149 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.633230
The appellant’s deceased husband was an engine-driver in the respondents’ service. In March 1907, while his engine was at Landore, Swansea, he descended in order to turn a water-crane to his engine. He afterwards crossed another line of rails in order to get a book from a friend on another engine. This was a private purpose of the deceased’s, unconnected with his work. While returning to his own engine he was knocked down and killed by a waggon in course of shunting. Held that the accident did not arise ‘out of and in the course of’ his employment under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897, section 1.
Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Ashbourne, Macnaghten, and James of Hereford
[1908] UKHL 700, 46 SLR 700
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621523
Under the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887 an additional special rule was in force in a mine which provided-‘The bottomer at a mid-working. . . shall not open the gate fencing the shaft until the cage is stopped at such mid-working . . ‘
A bottomer at a mid-working, in need of the cage, signalled for it by calling down the shaft to the bottomer at the foot, who again signalled to the engineer at the surface to raise the cage which was then at the foot. This was the usual mode of signalling, and the engineer on receipt of the signal, generally, without further signal, stopped the cage at the mid-working, but he did not invariably do so. On the occasion in question he did not stop the cage at the mid-working. The bottomer there after having heard the signal given to the engineer, without ascertaining whether the cage had stopped, in breach of the additional special rule, opened the gate fencing the shaft, and then went behind his hutch and pushed it into the shaft. The hutch fell to the bottom of the shaft dragging the miner with it, and he received injuries, which however were not serious or permanent. A few days prior to the accident he had been warned as to non-observance of the rule. In an arbitration under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 the arbiter found that the bottomer’s injuries were due to his own ‘serious and wilful misconduct,’ and refused compensation.
Held that there was evidence upon which the arbiter might so find.
Observations (per Lord Chancellor and Lord Robertson) upon the effect towards establishing ‘serious and wilful misconduct’ of an admitted or proved breach of a statutory rule by the workman.
Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Robertson and Lord Collins
[1908] UKHL 28, 46 SLR 28
Scotland
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621525
A workman in poor physical condition was engaged in a steamer’s stokehold raking ashes from the furnace; he received a heat-stroke from the radiation of the boiler and died in a few hours.
Held ( diss. Lord Macnaghten) that the death was caused by accident within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906.
Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Ashbourne and Macnaghten
[1908] UKHL 699, 46 SLR 699
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621517
A seaman was accidentally injured while engaged in his ordinary work as a sailor on board his ship. At the time she had completed coaling and was lying in the middle of the dock basin moored to buoys and waiting to proceed to sea on the following day.
Held (diss Lord James of Hereford) that the employment in which the injured man was engaged was not one to which the Workmen’s Compensation Act applied.
Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lords Macnaghten, James of Hereford, and Lindley
[1905] UKHL 865, 42 SLR 865
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897 1 7
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621177
In consequence of a wreck in one of the shafts of a mine the miners were ordered to the surface. Those accustomed to ascend by the damaged shaft were directed to ascend by another shaft. They were detained an hour and a-half waiting until this shaft was free, the miners accustomed to use it being taken up first. While waiting they in their heated state were exposed to a downdraught of cold air. One of them caught a chill, upon which pneumonia supervened and he died. The arbiter in a claim for compensation found that his death was due to accident arising out of the employment. Held (rev. judgment of the Second Division) that the arbiter’s finding was right.
Lord Dunedin, Lord Kinnear, Lord Atkinson, Lord Shaw, and Lord Parmoor
[1914] UKHL 492, 51 SLR 492
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
Scotland
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620713
Under statutory rules a shot in a mine should have been fired in the following way:-The miner’s duty was to insert and stem the detonator which was given to him by a duly appointed official called the shot-firer. The shot-firer’s duty it then was to attach the end of the cable to the detonator, thereafter to couple up the other end of the cable, which had to be at least 20 yards in length, with
the electrical apparatus, having, however, before doing so seen that all persons in the vicinity had taken proper shelter. A shot-firer was in the habit of getting the miners to attach the cable to the detonator. He handed a detonator and the end of the cable to a miner. The miner had inserted and stemmed the detonator and attached the end of the cable to it, and had turned round and was just going away for shelter when the charge was fired. The miner was seriously injured. The arbiter found that the accident arose out of the employment, and was not to be attributed to the miner having arrogated to himself duties outwith the sphere of his employment.
Held (rev. judgment of the Second Division) that the arbiter’s finding was right.
Lord Dunedin, Lord Kinnear, Lord Atkinson, Lord Shaw, and Lord Parmoor
[1914] UKHL 496, 51 SLR 496
Scotland
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620717
Frank Whittall was a miner and was killed by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by the respondents. Thomas Lloyd was the illegitimate son of Alice Lloyd by Frank Whittall, born seven months after the latter’s death. At the arbitration Alice Lloyd gave evidence, objected to by the respondents but admitted and accepted by the arbitrator, that Whittall shortly before his death promised to marry her before the child was born. William Jones and Matilda Evans, whose evidence was similarly objected to and accepted, also testified to Whittall’s intention to marry Alice Lloyd.
Being satisfied by this evidence that Whittall had intended to marry Alice Lloyd before the birth of the child, and that at the time of Whittall’s death Thomas Lloyd was wholly dependent on his earnings, the arbitrator made an award for pounds 213 and costs.
The Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator was wrong in deciding that Thomas Lloyd was a dependant of Whittall within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906, and in admitting the evidence of Alice Lloyd, William Jones, and Matilda Evans.
Held: Where a claim was made on behalf of the posthumous illegitimate child of a workman who was killed by an accident in the course of his employment, held that (a) statements made by the workman to the effect that the child was his and that he would marry the mother before the child was born are evidence of paternity and dependence; ( b) the County Court Judge cannot on a claim based on partial dependence award compensation based on total dependence.
Opinion per Lord Shaw that the fact of dependency, whether in the case of legitimate or illegitimate children, does not necessarily rest on proving a promise of support by the father.
Earl Loreburn, Lords Atkinson, Shaw, and Moulton
[1914] UKHL 631, 52 SLR 631
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620714
A schoolmaster at an industrial school, while performing his duties, was assaulted and killed by two of his pupils (who had formed a conspiracy for that purpose, and were afterwards tried and found guilty of manslaughter). A dependant having claimed compensation, the County Court Judge found that the deceased met his death by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Held (1) that his death was due to an accident, and (2) that there was evidence to support the finding of the arbitrator that the accident arose out of his employment.
Lords Dunedin, Atkinson, and Parker dissented.
Lord Chancellor (Viscount Haldane), Earl Loreburn, Lords Dunedin, Atkinson, Shaw, Parker, and Reading
[1914] UKHL 612, 52 SLR 612
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620711
Contrary to orders, a boy employed on a machine sat on the guard of the machine, and in consequence caught his foot in the machinery. Had he been standing the accident could not have happened.
Held that he was entitled to compensation.
Earl Loreburn, Lords Parker, Sumner, and Parmoor
[1915] UKHL 503, 53 SLR 503
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620683
A coalheaver was struck in the abdomen by a fall of coal while coaling a ship. He died from peritonitis, and the medical evidence showed him to have been suffering from chronic appendicitis. The question arose whether his death was the result of the blow or of the disease. The arbitrator found his widow entitled to compensation on the ground that the blow was the immediate cause of death though it would not have killed a healthy man. Held ( diss. Lords Parker and Sumner and rev. decision of Court of Appeal, 6 B.W.C.C. 750), that the award proceeded on sufficient evidence.
Earl Loreburn, Lords Atkinson, Parker, Sumner, and Parmoor
[1915] UKHL 516, 53 SLR 516
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620680
Compensation had been paid by weekly payments for injuries received by a workman, and had been discontinued on the workman’s recovery and return to work. About two years later the workman, having meantime been in hospital with an illness which was not the result of the accident, claimed compensation on the ground of partial incapacity arising from the original injuries. The employers demanded that the work-man should submit to medical examination, and on the second occasion the man refused to do so. Consequently the employers, successfully, applied to the County Court for an order staying the proceedings till he should submit himself to such examination. Held (aff. Court of Appeal, 7 B.W.C.C. 138) that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906, Sched. I, par. 4, which paragraph here applied, the workman was bound to submit to as many examinations as the employer might reasonably require, and that there was no suggestion that the demand was in this case unreasonable.
Earl Loreburn, Lords Atkinson and Parker
[1915] UKHL 524, 53 SLR 524
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620679
A seaman, with leave, went on shore to buy provisions, his contract of service being ‘Crew to supply their own provisions.’ On the seaman’s return he fell into the water and was drowned, somewhere in the length of the pier at the end of which his ship had been moored, but from which she had been moved to another berth.
Held that the accident did not arise ‘out of and in the course of his employment.’
Earl Loreburn, Lords Parker, Sumner, Parmoor, and Wrenbury
[1915] UKHL 500, 53 SLR 500
England and Wales
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620684
A watchman was employed to look after some trawlers while lying in a harbour, his duties extending from Saturday afternoon to Sunday afternoon, a period of 25 hours. He supplied his own food, which was sometimes brought him by members of his family. It was necessary for him at times to be on the quay. On Saturday night he went to an hotel a short distance from the quay, had half-a-glass of whisky and a glass of beer, and on returning to the quay proceeded to descend a fixed ladder to get on board one of the trawlers, when he slipped, fell into the water, and was drowned. He had only been absent at the hotel a short time.
Held (rev. judgment of the Second Division) that there was evidence to support a finding by an arbiter that the accident was one ‘arising out of and in the course of’ the employment; per Lords Ashbourne, Atkinson, and Shaw, on the ground that the watchman had returned to, and was within, the sphere of his duty when the accident occurred; and per Lord James, on the ground that the obtaining of refreshment was necessary for the fulfilment of his duty- dissenting the Lord Chancellor, on the ground that though the watchman had arrived within the ambit of his duty, he was not on the ladder in the course of it, but in returning to it; and Lord Gorell, on the ground that the duty of watching prohibited the watchman’s being away, and while he was entitled to be on the quay, there was no proof, the onus being on the claimant, that the watchman was there in connection with his duty. Authorities reviewed.
Observations, per Lord Shaw, approving and applying Henderson v. Glasgow Corporation, July 5, 1900, 2 F. 1127, 37 S.L.R. 857, to the effect that where an arbiter is of opinion that the question whether an accident is one arising out of and in the course of the employment is purely one of fact, he is entitled so to find and to refuse to state a case.
Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Ashbourne, Lord James of Hereford, Lord Atkinson, Lord Gorell, and Lord Shaw of Dunfermline
[1909] UKHL 901
Scotland
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620587
A blasting accident occurred in a coal mine, and an action was raised against the mine-owners in respect of injuries received by a miner. It was proved that statutory regulations as to the methods of blasting had been broken, certain obligatory precautions not having been taken. Under these circumstances held that the onus of proof lay upon the mine-owners to show that they had not failed in their duty of care.
The Earl of Halsbury, Lords Ashbourne, Atkinson, Gorell, and Shaw
[1909] UKHL 609
England and Wales
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620593
A workman suffered from a diseased condition of the arteries, and he died of an apoplectic seizure while engaged at work. There was no evidence to show that the apoplexy resulted from a strain or any other incident of labour.
Held that there was no evidence that the death had occurred from accident arising out of the employment
[1910] UKHL 727, 48 SLR 727
England and Wales
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619801
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 a proceeding by way of penalty is the only remedy allowed by the statute. . We are to consider the scope and purpose of the statute and in particular for whose benefit it is intended. Now the object of the present statute is plain. It was intended to compel mine owners to make due provision for the safety of the men working in their mines, and the persons for whose benefit all these rules are to be enforced are the persons exposed to danger. But when a duty of this kind is imposed for the benefit of particular persons, there arises at common law a correlative right in those persons who may be injured by its contravention. Therefore I think that it is impossible to hold that the penalty clause detracts in any way from the prima facie right of the persons for whose benefit the statutory enactment has been passed to enforce the civil liability. I think this has been found both in England and Scotland in cases in which the point was directly raised, the case of Groves v. Lord Wimborne in England and Kelly v. Glebe Sugar Refining Company in Scotland.’
The Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887, sec. 49, enacts-‘The following general rules shall be observed, so far as is reasonably practicable, in every mine.’
Held that although this did not impose on the mine-owner an absolute duty that the rules be observed, it placed on him, in the event of a breach of a rule, the onus of proving that he had done everything that was practicable to have the rule observed. If he failed to discharge this onus, he was liable at common law for any damage resulting therefrom, and could not derive protection from the doctrine of common employment.
Circumstances in which held that the owners of a coal mine were liable at common law and not under the Employers’ Liability Act 1880 only, for the death of a miner from carbon monoxide gas, where the presence of the miner in the mine was held to be due to breaches of general rules 4 (1) and 7, and special rule 37, by the under-manager in charge of the mine and the fireman, inasmuch as the mine-owners had not taken, such means as were open to them of making these officials competent to deal with carbon monoxide.
Lord Kinnear said: ‘We are to consider the scope and purpose of the statute and in particular for whose benefit it is intended. Now the object of the present statute is plain. It was intended to compel mine owners to make due provision for the safety of the men working in their mines, and the persons for whose benefit all these rules are to be enforced are the persons exposed to danger. But when a duty of this kind is imposed for the benefit of particular persons, there arises at common law a correlative right in those persons who may be injured by its contravention. Therefore I think it is quite impossible to hold that the penalty clause detracts in any way from the prima facie right of the persons for whose benefit the statutory enactment has been passed to enforce the civil liability.’
The Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Ashbourne, Lord Kinnear, and Lord Shaw
[1912] AC 149, [1911] UKHL 228, 1912 SC (HL) 33, 49 SLR 228, [1912] AC 149
Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887 49
Scotland
Cited – 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 . .
At SCS – Black v The Fife Coal Co, Ltd SCS 24-Nov-1908
. .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Campbell v Gordon SC 6-Jul-2016
The employee was injured at work, but in a way excluded from the employers insurance cover. He now sought to make the sole company director liable, hoping in term to take action against the director’s insurance brokers for negligence, the director . .
Dictum Approved – Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium Ltd HL 1949
The Act required the occupier of a licensed racetrack to take all steps necessary to secure that, so long as a totalisator was being lawfully operated on the track, there was available for bookmakers space on the track where they could conveniently . .
Dictum Approved – Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2) HL 1-Apr-1981
No General Liability in Tort for Wrongful Acts
The plaintiff had previously constructed an oil supply pipeline from Beira to Mozambique. After Rhodesia declared unilateral independence, it became a criminal offence to supply to Rhodesia without a licence. The plaintiff ceased supply as required, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619220
The appellant in this case was in the employment of the respondents, and as the result of an accident received injuries which entitled him to compensation, the amount of which was settled in an agreement in accordance with the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. VII, cap. 58). On an application by the respondents to the County Court Judge to review the agreement, evidence being forthcoming that the appellant had completely recovered, the latter granted an order terminating the agreement. This appeal was brought on the grounds that the County Court Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in terminating the agreement, or alternatively that the agreement was an attempt to contract out of the Act, and therefore void.
The Court of Appeal ( Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Fletcher-Moulton, and Farwell, L.JJ.) affirmed.
Held:
A registered agreement between employer and employed, under which the employed accepts a certain weekly payment in discharge of the employer’s liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 ‘until ended, diminished, increased, or redeemed’ by an order of the arbiter, is legal. Technically such an agreement cannot be terminated by the arbiter, though he may end permanently, and not merely temporarily, the payments.
Lord Chancellor (Earl Loreburn), Lords Atkinson, Shaw, and Mersey
[1912] UKHL 1020, 49 SLR 1020
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
England and Wales
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619232
The court must avoid treating every risky act by an employee due to familiarity with the work or some inattention resulting from noise or strain as contributory negligence: ‘ . . in Factory Act cases the purpose of imposing the absolute obligation is to protect the workmen against those very acts of inattention which are sometimes relied upon as constituting contributory negligence so that too strict a standard would defeat the object of the statute.’ (Lord Tucker) The rule of ‘respondeat superior’ is merely a restatement of the rule ‘qui facit per alium facit per se’. The employee’s wrong is imputed to the employer.
Lord Reid, Lord Tucker
[1956] AC 627
England and Wales
Cited – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 15-Jul-1999
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust HL 12-Jul-2006
Employer can be liable for Managers Harassment
The claimant employee sought damages, saying that he had been bullied by his manager and that bullying amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act. The employer now appealed a finding that it was responsible for a tort committed by a manager, saying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.214672
The respondent was employed as a shot firer in a quarry, and was to test the electric wiring connecting explosive charges. Contrary to instructions that testing must be done from a shelter, the respondent and another shot firer carried out a test in the open and they were both injured.
Held: The employer’s appeal succeeded. Where two fellow-servants combined to disobey an order deliberately though they knew the risk involved, a plea of volenti non fit injuria was a complete defence if the employer was not himself at fault and was only liable vicariously for the acts of the fellow servant. The House emphasised the distinction between lack of care for one’s own safety and the true acceptance of risk. A plaintiff’s conduct cannot be described as voluntary unless he truly had a free choice.
The House considered the origins of the doctrine of vicarious liability: ‘The doctrine of vicarious liability has not grown from any very clear, logical or legal principle but from social convenience and rough justice’, and ‘an employer who is himself at fault in persistently refusing to comply with a statutory rule could not possibly be allowed to escape liability because the injured workman had agreed to waive the breach.’
Lord Reid said that though ‘. . an employer who is himself at fault in persistently refusing to comply with a statutory rule could not possibly be allowed to escape liability because the injured workman had agreed to waive the breach.’, ‘It was argued that in this case it has not been shown that George [Shatwell] had a full appreciation of the risk. In my view it must be held that he had. He knew that those better qualified than he was took the risk seriously. He knew that his employers had forbidden this practice and that it had then been prohibited by statutory regulation. And he knew that his employers were taking strong measures to see that the order was obeyed. If he did not choose to believe what he was told I do not think that he could for that reason say that he did not fully appreciate the risk. He knew that the risk was that a charge would explode during testing, and no shot firer could be in any doubt about the possible consequences of that.’
Lord Pearce: ‘The doctrine of vicarious liability has not grown from any very clear, logical or legal principle but from social convenience and rough justice’. And ‘I am not persuaded that there is any reason of principle or policy which can be of substantial guidance in the resolution of the problem of applying the rule in any particular case. Theory may well justify the existence of the concept, but it is hard to find guidance from any underlying principle which will weigh in the decision whether in a particular case a particular wrongful act by the employee should or should not be regarded as falling within the scope of the employment.’
and ‘Since contributory negligence has ceased to be a total defence and it has become possible to produce a fair result by apportionment, the reluctance to find the total defence of volenti non fit injuria became more marked …’
and ‘Where Parliament has laid down that certain precautions shall be taken by the master to protect his workman, the master is not and should not be entitled to neglect those precautions and then rely on an expressed or implied agreement between himself and the workman that the latter, if injured as a result of the neglect, will bear the loss alone.’
Viscount Radcliffe: ‘These considerations apart, there are involved in this case questions as to the application of the maxim volenti non fit injuria and as to the principle that in the eyes of the law a man cannot be treated as having disavowed a statutory protection enacted for his benefit in the public interest. On these points, I have had the opportunity of studying in advance the opinions of your Lordships, and I wish to associate myself in particular with the opinion to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Pearce. I do think it of great importance that the law should not in general allow a person to disqualify himself from the protection of a statutory duty imposed for his benefit, where there is any element of public advantage in upholding the duty. But I do not think that this is a case in which that principle applies.’ and
‘My Lords, it helps sometimes to assess the merits of a decision if one starts by noticing its results and only after doing that allots to it the legal principles upon which it is said to depend.’
Lord Hodson said that a plaintiff’s conduct cannot be described as voluntary unless he truly had a free choice.
Lord Pearce, Lord Hodson, Viscount Radcliffe
[1964] 2 All ER 999, [1964] UKHL 2, [1965] AC 656
England and Wales
Cited – Yarmouth v France CA 11-Aug-1887
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant to drive carts. He objected that the horse had a vicious nature, but was obliged to drive it in any event. The horse kicked him.
Held: For the purposes of the 1880 Act, the plaintiff was an employee, . .
Cited – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
Cited – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 15-Jul-1999
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust HL 12-Jul-2006
Employer can be liable for Managers Harassment
The claimant employee sought damages, saying that he had been bullied by his manager and that bullying amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act. The employer now appealed a finding that it was responsible for a tort committed by a manager, saying . .
Cited – White v Blackmore CA 15-Jun-1972
The plaintiff attended a jalopy car race and was injured. It was a condition of his entry that he agreed that motor racing was dangerous and that he would not hold the organisers or others responsible if injured. He was injured when a safety rope, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.189975
[1908] SLR 191
Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887
Scotland
Cited – Campbell v Gordon SC 6-Jul-2016
The employee was injured at work, but in a way excluded from the employers insurance cover. He now sought to make the sole company director liable, hoping in term to take action against the director’s insurance brokers for negligence, the director . .
At SCS – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 April 2022; Ref: scu.610812
(Judgment) Protection of the health and safety of consumers and workers – Directive 2006/42 / EC – Safeguard clause – National measure prohibiting the placing on the market of a pressure washer – Essential health and safety requirements – Commission decision declaring the measure justified – Obligation to state reasons – Equality of treatment
ECLI: EU: T: 2018: 246, [2018] EUECJ T-168/16
European
Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609510
Social Policy – Protection of Safety and Health of Workers – Opinion – Social policy – Protection of safety and health of workers – Directive 92/85/EEC – Article 7 – whether ‘night work’ covers shift work where the worker concerned performs her duties during the night – Worker who is breastfeeding – Assessment of working conditions challenged by the worker concerned – Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC – Burden of proof – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of sex
ECLI:EU:C:2018:289, [2018] EUECJ C-41/17 – O
European
Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609310
Jeremy Baker J
[2018] EWHC 810 (QB), [2018] WLR(D) 226
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
England and Wales
Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.609114
(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 89/391 / EEC – Safety and health of workers at work – Classification as a place of work exposing workers to special or special conditions – Assessment of risks to safety and health at work – Obligations of the employer
ECLI:EU:C:2018:203, C-133/17, [2018] EUECJ C-133/17
European
Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.608614
British Steel employed two sub-contractors to work in moving a steel tower under their supervision. One platform fell on one of the sub-contractors, killing him. British Steel claimed they had delegated their responsibilities under the Act, and were not criminally liable.
Held: A corporate employer cannot evade the strict liability imposed by the legislation by delegation of its responsibilities. Subject to the defence of having done what was reasonably practical, which meant only the measures necessary to avert risks, the section created an absolute offence, to which there was no defence that the ‘directing mind’ at senior level had taken all reasonable care to delegate responsibility to a competent and responsible person. The offence created by section 3 is subject to the reasonably practicable defence, which is for a defendant to prove on a balance of probabilities ‘that it was not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty . . or that there was no better practicable means than was in fact used to satisfy the duty or requirement.’
Times 31-Dec-1994, [1995] IRLR 310, [1995] ICR 586, [1995] 1 WLR 1356
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 40
England and Wales
Considered – Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass HL 31-Mar-1971
Identification of Company’s Directing Mind
In a prosecution under the 1968 Act, the court discussed how to identify the directing mind and will of a company, and whether employees remained liable when proper instructions had been given to those in charge of a local store.
Held: ‘In the . .
Applied – Regina v Board of Trustees of the Science Museum CA 26-May-1993
The appellants were convicted of failing to conduct their undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, persons not in their employment were not exposed to risks to their health and safety. One of their buildings . .
Applied – Regina v Associated Octel Ltd CACD 3-Aug-1994
The company was said to have failed in its duties under section 3(1) of the 1974 Act.
Held: The maintenance and cleaning of a company’s premises can be part of its undertaking, for which its managers are criminally responsible, even if outside . .
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 – Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd CA 10-Feb-2009
Harassment to Criminal Level needed to Convict
The claimant had been a customer of the defendant, but had moved to another supplier. She was then subjected to a constant stream of threatening letters which she could not stop despite re-assurances and complaints. The defendant now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86213
Repetitive Strain Injury is not a sufficiently well recognised medical condition to found an action.
Times 10-Nov-1993, Independent 02-Nov-1993
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85642
An employer may be liable for damages for passive smoking if the claim is pleaded correctly.
Times 22-Apr-1997
Offices Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 7
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85639
The defendants had designed a conveyor, but failed to include in the drawings appropriate safety features. The plant was constructed, but failed causing a fatal injury. One company had designed the system, another had converted it into drawings and a third built the structure relying upon the drawings. The appellant had not prepared the design upon which the construction was based and was not criminally liable, and nor was he vicariously liable since the drawings had not been prepared under his control.
Times 29-Mar-2000
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 (1994 No 3140)
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85442
Equipment in non-domestic premises (an indoor nursery playground) is a plant within the Act, and the Local Authority may prosecute for a breach of the regulations.
Times 08-Jul-1994, Ind Summary 25-Jul-1994
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 4(1)(b)
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83881
An employer’s duties to provide a safe workplace exists despite the lack of forseeability of any accident of the type which occurred.
Times 29-Sep-1995, [1995] SC 518
Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83328
A flagstone being laid by a council employee was held to be ‘equipment provided by his employer for the purposes of the employer’s business’ under the 1969 Act. An employer is liable for the defective equipment he provides. What is equipment will vary according to the work. A flagstone was equipment to a road flagger.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
Ind Summary 15-Nov-1993, Times 15-Oct-1993, [1994] ICR 243, [1993] 1 WLR 1428, [1993] 4 All ER 321, 91 LGR 629, [1993] IRLR 568, [1994] 1 Lloyd’ds Rep 11, [1994] PIQR P8, (1993) 143 NLJ 1479
Employer’s Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969
England and Wales
Appeal From – Knowles v Liverpool City Council CA 2-Jul-1992
A flagstone handled by an employee was equipment for purposes of the Act. . .
Unhelpful – Haigh v Charles W Ireland Ltd HL 1974
. .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82823
Window was to be cleaned from the inside where so designed, and not from the sill. Employer’s were liable.
Times 03-Nov-1994
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82786
The applicant had to show that her injuries arose from the use of a ‘hand held vibrating tool.’ The tool did not itself vibrate, but its use involved resting her hands on a vibrating surface, so as to cause the tool to vibrate. She came to suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome.
Held: The source of the vibration was not crucial to the claim, and therefore it succeeded.
Times 02-Feb-2001
Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1985 No 967, Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992
England and Wales
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82491
Health and Safety summons was not duplicitous despite absence of detailed allegation.
Times 09-Dec-1996
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2(1) 2(2)
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81293
A forklift truck can be ‘place’ within Act despite being moveable.
Times 04-Nov-1994
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81091
The plaintiff appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages for personal injury suffered on a machine at his work.
Sir John Donaldson MR, Oliver, Robet Goff LJJ
[1984] EWCA Civ 4, [1985] ICR 155
England and Wales
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.258754
The pursuer sought damages after being injured slipping from a pipe whilst working for the defendants on an oil barge in Norway.
[2008] ScotCS CSOH – 141
Scotland
Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.276682
The pursuer, a teacher, claimed under health and safety laws of the injury suffered working for the defenders. He said that he had also suffered harassment for which his employers were vicariously responsible. The defenders said that the action was not strictly a personal injury claim within chapter 43, since injuries under the 1997 Act were for a statutory delict.
[2008] ScotCS CSOH – 113
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 18B
Scotland
Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.272504
Claim for damages for personal injury, loss and damage sustained during the course of employment at the defendant’s Royal Opera House as a musician.
Held: The claim succeeded.
[2018] EWHC 687 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.606878
(Judgment) REACH – Fee payable for the registration of a substance – Reduction granted to SMEs – Verification by ECHA of the declaration on the size of the undertaking – Decision imposing an administrative right – Recommendation 2003/361 / EC – Exceeding financial ceilings – Concept of ‘related undertaking
T-855/16, [2018] EUECJ T-855/16
European
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.606007
In the course of laying a water-main, a test-head was attached between the pipe and a pump to test the water pressure, but it was insecurely fitted and, as pressure built up, it blew off, causing the death of a workman who ran into the path of a passing car.
Held: On a case stated by magistrates after conviction, the defendant’s appeal was allowed. The guiding light in the court’s approach was that: ‘in deciding whether the place of work was made safe, it is the place qua place that we look at, and not the place qua operation carried on upon the place.’ Lord Widgery CJ continued to say: ‘That does not mean of course that in deciding whether the place is made safe one has total disregard for the activities which go on in the place itself. The safety of the place depends not simply on the construction of the floor or the solidity of the walls, but it also depends in some degree upon the nature of the operations carried on therein. In so far as there is permanent equipment in the place, then its safety can in my judgment reflect on the safety of the place. In so far as there are activities carried on in the place which are constant, regular and recurring, I can well see that they may have their impact on the question of whether the place has been made safe.’ and ‘Where, as in the present case, you start with a place safe in every degree, and the only thing which renders it unsafe is the fact that equipment brought upon it for a particular operation, and being used for a particular operation on a particular day, produces an element of danger, it seems to me that that is not enough to justify the allegation, certainly in criminal proceedings, that the place itself has not been made safe.’
Lord Widgery CJ, Bridge and Shaw JJ
[1975] QB 626
England and Wales
Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.440375
The company appealed against sentence after a worker died following an accident while working at the defendant’s premises.
Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ, Teare, Kerr JJ
[2017] EWCA Crim 2186
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601870
The company appealed from very substantial fines imposed after serious incidents involving breaches of Health and Safety Regulations.
F#Gross LJ, Jefford DBE J, Aubrey QC HHJ
[2017] EWCA Crim 704
England and Wales
Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588235
Social policy – Directive 92/85/EEC – Protection of the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding – Articles 5(2) and 11(1) – Worker temporarily transferred to another job during her pregnancy – Compulsory transfer because of a risk to her safety or health and that of her child – Pay less than the average pay received before the transfer – Previous pay made up of a basic salary and various supplementary allowances – Calculation of the salary to which a pregnant worker is entitled during the period of her temporary transfer
[2010] EUECJ C-471/08, [2011] 1 CMLR 8, [2011] ICR 99, [2011] CEC 494, [2010] ECR I-6533
European
Opinion – Parviainen (Social Policy) ECJ 17-Dec-2009
ECJ (Opinion) Social policy Protection of the safety and health of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding’ Directive 92/85 / EEC Articles 5 and 11 (1) Maintenance of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584521
ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) – Article 57(f) – Authorisation – Substances of very high concern – Identification – Equivalent level of concern – Hexahydromethylphthalic anhydride, hexahydro-4-methylphthalic anhydride, hexahydro-1-methylphthalic anhydride and hexahydro-3-methylphthalic anhydride
ECLI:EU:C:2017:208, [2017] EUECJ C-324/15
European
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580708
ECJ (Research and Technological Development Research and Technological Development Research and Technological Development – Order) Interim measures – REACH – Fee payable for the registration of a substance – Discount granted to micro, small and medium enterprises – Decision imposing an administrative fee and additional fee – Application for stay of execution – Lack of urgency
ECLI:EU:T:2017:155, [2017] EUECJ T-855/16 – CO
European
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580704
ECJ Appeal – European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) – Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical substances – Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) – Articles 57 and 59 – Substances subject to authorisation – Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern – Inclusion on the candidate list of substances – Publication – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court – Date from which that time-limit must be calculated in the case of an action brought against a decision published only on the internet – Legal certainty – Effective judicial protection
[2013] EUECJ C-625/11
England and Wales
Opinion – Polyelectrolyte Producers Group Geie v European Chemicals Agency ECJ 21-Mar-2013
ECJ Appeal – Actions for annulment – Admissibility – Premature action – Action out of time – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to effective judicial protection – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580687
The court considered the meaning of the word likely in the section: ‘A person shall not be employed to lift, carry or move any load so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to him.’
Held: ‘likely’ in that context meant ‘more probable than not’. May LJ: ‘there was clearly a risk that injury might occur, but I do not think that I can say that it was ‘likely’, or ‘probable’, or ‘more probable than not”. Slade LJ: ‘this construction of the phrase is, I think, one which not only accords with the natural meaning of the words according to ordinary English usage, but also with what may be presumed to have been the intention of Parliament’. Stephenson LJ: The words refer to ‘injury which is ‘probable’, and ‘probable’ can be expanded, or extended, and possibly clarified, to mean ‘more probable than not’.’
May LJ, Stephenson LJ, Slade LJ
[1984] ICR 688
England and Wales
Cited – Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and The Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Limited CA 13-Feb-2003
The defendants considered publication of alleged financial irregularities by the claimant, who sought to restrain publication. The defendants argued that under the Act, prior restraint should not be used unless a later court would be likely to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.182931
The plaintiff’s husband had worked as a lorry driver transporting lead oxide waste. She had washed his overall each day, and had so been exposed to the lead oxide.
Held: There was no liability to the wife of an employee suffering exposure to lead dust after handling her husband’s contaminated clothes. It was not foreseeable that the extent of exposure to a spouse would be so great as to create a risk. The exposure of the husband himself had been not such as to give rise to liability.
Gazette 15-Apr-1992, [1992] ICR 530
Control of Lead at Work Regulations 1980 (1980 No 1248) 8
England and Wales
Updated: 25 February 2022; Ref: scu.81350
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 2002/15/EC – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Organisation of working time – Road transport – Mobile worker – Self-employed driver – Concept – Inadmissibility
ECLI:EU:C:2017:158, [2017] EUECJ C-97/16
European
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579683
Appeal against the dismissal of a claim for damages in respect of injuries sustained by him when he fell from a ladder, while carrying out decorating work.
Patten, Sales, David Richards LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 125
England and Wales
Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.578203
[2003] ScotHC 1
Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 3(1) 33(1)(a)
Scotland
Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.181767
[2020] EWHC 2386 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.653392
Claim for asbestos exposure related injury by former steeplejack.
David Pittaway QC
[2017] EWHC 149 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573860
David Pittaway QC
[2016] EWHC 3252 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572644
Jay J
[2016] EWHC 3276 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572639
(Judgment) Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 95/30/EC – Protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work – Failure to implement within the prescribed period
C-473/99, [2001] EUECJ C-473/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:336, [2001] ECR I-4527
Bailii
European
Health and Safety
Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.162782
[2019] EWHC 232 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.633238
Master and Servant – Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 (8 Edw. VII, cap. 58), Schedule I (16) – Weekly Payment – Review – Partial Incapacity – Inability to Find Suitable Work – No Change in Physical Condition
the Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Macnaghten, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Shaw
[1912] UKHL 708, 49 SLR 708
Bailii
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
England and Wales
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.619244
EAT Time Off – HEALTH and SAFETY
The right to paid time off for safety representatives – remedy for denial of the right – Regulation 11(3) of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977
Having found that the Respondent had acted in breach of the Regulations by denying the Claimant (an appointed safety representative) paid time off work for a prescribed purpose, the ET made a declaration to that effect but concluded that no award of compensation should be made under Regulation 11(3) of the 1977 Regulations. Whilst allowing that an injury to feelings award was permissible under the Regulations, the ET did not find that the Claimant had established any such injury in fact in this case. Considering the possibility of an award for what was just and equitable having regard to the employer’s default and the loss sustained by the Claimant, more generally, the ET equally concluded that no award should be made.
The Claimant appealed, arguing that the ET had erred in its approach, alternatively had reached a perverse conclusion.
The Respondent resisted the appeal, relying on the ET’s reasoning but also seeking to argue for the first time that no award for injury to feelings was permissible under Regulation 11(3).
Held: dismissing the appeal
There were no exceptional reasons to permit the Respondent to take a point for the first time on appeal but, obiter, injury to feelings awards related to claims of discrimination (applying London Borough of Hackney v Adams [2003] IRLR 402 EAT and Santos Gomes v Higher Level Care Ltd UKEAT/0017/16/RN) and not to the non-discriminatory breach of a right for the purposes of Regulation 11(3).
The ET had approached its task correctly, whether viewed as considering compensation for injury to feelings or in respect of what was just and equitable more generally (following Skiggs v South West Trains Ltd [2005] IRLR 459 EAT). Its reasoning could not be read as limited to one paragraph; it had taken into account relevant factors and had reached a permissible conclusion on the material before it.
Eady QC HHJ
[2016] UKEAT 0125 – 16 – 1710
Bailii
Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 11(3)
England and Wales
Employment, Health and Safety
Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570399
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Arbeitsgericht Lorrach – Germany. 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
A National Court, when applying domestic law and in particular legislative provisions specifically adopted for the purposes of implementing the requirements of a Directive, is bound to interpret national law, as far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the Directive concerned in order to achieve the result sought by the Directive. It is the responsibility of the National Court to ensure that the rules of Community law are fully effective.
Europa 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.
C-399/01, [2004] EUECJ C-399/01, C-401/01, [2004] EUECJ C-401/01, [2004] EUECJ C-403/01, C-397/01, C-398/01, C-402/01, C-403/01, C-400/01, [2005] IRLR 137, [2004] ECR 8835, [2005] ICR 1307, [2004] ECR I-8835
Bailii, Bailii, Bailii
Directive 93/104/EC
European
Citing:
Approved – Landeshauptstadt Kiel v Norbert Jaeger ECJ 9-Sep-2003
Concepts of working time and rest period – On Call
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Landesarbeitsgericht Schleswig-Holstein – Germany. Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Concepts of working time and rest . .
See Also – Pfeiffer etc v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV 4 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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Greenalls Management Ltd v Customs and Excise HL 12-May-2005
Volumes of vodka were transferred from a secure warehouse to a carrier for export. They were diverted, and not exported and the Customs sought the unpaid duty from the warehouse. The Directive provided that duty was payable on the ‘release for . .
Cited – Attridge Law (A Firm of Solicitors) v Coleman and Law EAT 20-Dec-2006
The claimant asserted associative disability discrimination. She was the carer for her disabled son.
Held: To succeed the claimant would have to show that associative discrimination was prohibited by the directive and that the 1995 Act could . .
Cited – English v Thomas Sanderson Ltd CA 19-Dec-2008
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for harrassment and sex discrimination. Though heterosexual, he had been subject to persistent jokes that he was homosexual. The court first asked whether the alleged conduct was ‘on the grounds of sexual . .
Cited – British Airways Plc v Williams and Others SC 24-Mar-2010
The court was asked as to the calculation of annual leave pay for crew members in civil aviation under the Regulations. The company argued that it was based on the fixed annual remuneration, and the pilots argued that it should include other . .
Cited – O’Brien v Ministry of Justice SC 28-Jul-2010
The appellant had worked as a part time judge. He now said that he should be entitled to a judicial pension on retirement by means of the Framework Directive. The Regulations disapplied the provisions protecting part time workers for judicial office . .
Cited – Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp and Others v British Telecommunications Plc ChD 28-Jul-2011
The claimant rights holders sought an order to require the defendant broadband internet provider to deny access to its users to websites which were said to facilitate the distribution of infringing copies of their films. An earlier judgment had . .
Cited – Forensic Telecommunications Services Ltd v West Yorkshire Police and Another ChD 9-Nov-2011
The claimant alleged infringement by the defendant of assorted intellectual property rights in its database. It provided systems for recovering materials deleted from Nokia mobile phones.
Held: ‘the present case is concerned with a collection . .
Cited – British Airways Plc v Williams and Others SC 17-Oct-2012
The claimants, airline pilots, and the company disputed the application of the 1998 Regulations to their employment. They sought pay for their annual leave made up of three elements: a proportionate part of the fixed annual sum paid for their . .
Cited – R and S Pilling (T/A Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd SC 27-Mar-2019
The driver’s car failed its MOT., He took it to private premises to repair. In those repairs, inflammable materials ignited and the fire spread those premises and adjoining third party premises. The premise’ insurers paid the owners of both and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health and Safety, Transport, Employment, Health and Safety
Leading Case
Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.215895
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.
V Skouris, P
C-402/01, [2004] EUECJ C-402/01
Bailii
Directive 93/104/EC
European
Cited by:
See Also – Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV (1) ECJ 5-Oct-2004
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Arbeitsgericht Lorrach – Germany. Social policy – Protection of the health and safety of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Scope – Emergency workers in attendance in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health and Safety
Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.215896
The claimants had been exposed to platinum salts while employed by the defendant company in breach of the employer’s duties in negligence and Health and Safety. Though they had suffered no symptoms, they claimed in damages. The employer said that no actionable claim yet lay.
Held: The claimants’ appeals were rejected. Platinum sensitisation was not in itself an actionable harm. It was a physiological change, but not a hidden impairment which the potential to give rise to detrimental physical effects in the course of day to day life.
Lord Dyson MR, Davis, Sales LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 408, [2016] 1 WLR 4487, [2017] ICR 276, [2016] WLR(D) 224, [2017] ICR 43, [2016] IRLR 526
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
At QBD – Greenway and Others v Johnson Matthey Plc QBD 26-Nov-2014
The five claimants had been employed by the defendant. Whilst at work, and in breach of Health an Safety regulations, they had been exposed to complex halogenated platinum salts, and now claimed a sensitisation to such salts. The defendant argued . .
Cited by:
At CA – Dryden and Others v Johnson Matthey Plc SC 21-Mar-2018
Sensitisation to salt can be personal injury
The claimants, had developed platinum salt sensitisation due to the defendant employer’s breach of health and safety regulations and common law duty, claimed a cause of action for personal injury. Platinum salt sensitisation is, in itself, an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563069
The Inspector appealed against the cancellation by the Employment Tribunal of a prohibition notice.
Geraldiine Clark DHCJ
[2016] EWHC 868 (Admin)
Bailii
Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 1, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 24
England and Wales
Health and Safety
Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562909
[2003] EWCA Civ 1308
Bailii
England and Wales
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.186537
A labour-only subcontractor was provided with an inadequate ladder by the defendant. He was injured using it.
Held: The defendant was found liable.
However, Chapman J said: ‘The plaintiff puts his case to a considerable extent on the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, but it seems to me that there may be considerable difficulty in relation to that because the Act is dealing with an occupier. It is true that it covers moveable structures, such as vessels, vehicles and aircraft. I do not doubt that in appropriate circumstances it could apply to a ladder, but I see considerable difficulty in saying that once the defendant had handed the ladder over to the plaintiff and his partner for the purpose of the bricklaying the defendant was still the occupier of this ladder.’
Chapman J
[1981] 3 All ER 405
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
England and Wales
Cited by:
Distinguished on facts – Leitch v Reid QBNI 27-Jun-2003
The claimant was injured falling from a ladder on the defendant’s farm. The ladder was home built.
Held: The ladder was kept by the defendants for maintenance purposes, and there was an implicit aagreement that the claimant should use it. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Land
Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.184178
The appellant care worker fell in snow when visiting the respondent’s client at home. At issue was the admission and status of expert or skilled evidence.
Held: Mrs Kennedy’s appeal succeeded. ‘There are in our view four considerations which govern the admissibility of skilled evidence:
(i) whether the proposed skilled evidence will assist the court in its task;
(ii) whether the witness has the necessary knowledge and experience;
(iii) whether the witness is impartial in his or her presentation and assessment of the evidence; and
(iv) whether there is a reliable body of knowledge or experience to underpin the expert’s evidence.’
Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge
[2016] UKSC 6, [2016] WLR(D) 74, [2016] PIQR P9, 2016 GWD 4-97, 2016 SCLR 203, (2016) 149 BMLR 17, [2016] ICR 325, 2016 SLT 209, [2016] 1 WLR 597, 2016 SC (UKSC) 59, UKSC 2014/0247
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC summary
Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – Gibson v Pollock 1848
The court admitted evidence of practice in dog coursing to determine whether the owner or nominator of a dog was entitled to a prize on its success. . .
Cited – Morton v William Dixon Ltd IHCS 19-Mar-1909
Lord President Dunedin set out the liability of an employer: ‘Where the negligence of the employer consists of what I may call a fault of omission, I think it is absolutely necessary that the proof of that fault of omission should be one of two . .
Cited – Regina v Bonython 1984
(South Australia Supreme Court) The court considered the basis for deciding whether a proposed witness was an expert.
Held: It is for the judge to determine whether a witness is competent to give evidence as an expert and for that purpose . .
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 . .
At Outer House – Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp SCS 7-Aug-2013
Outer House – damages after carer’s fall in snow.
Held: The Outer House found Cordia liable under the PPE Regulations, the Management Regulations, and the common law. Both risk assessments for Cordia had been faulty.
Lord McEwan . .
Approved – Myers v The Queen PC 6-Oct-2015
Bermuda – three appeals against conviction raising similar, although not identical, questions concerning the admissibility and proper ambit of evidence as to the existence and practices of gangs and the defendant’s connections with them.
Held: . .
Cited – Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp SCS 19-Sep-2014
The respondent, Mrs Kennedy was working for the reclaimers as a carer. She had been injured walking up a snowy client’s path. The reclaimer appealed against an award for damages after a finding that she should have been provided with grips for her . .
Cited – Davie v Magistrates of Edinburgh 1953
Issues arose in relation to the expert evidence which had been led.
Held: The court rejected a submission that, where no counter evidence on the science in question had been adduced for the pursuer, the Court was bound to accept the . .
Cited – Regina v Turner (Terence) CACD 1974
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He admitted that he had killed his girlfriend with a hammer, but sought to bring psychiatric evidence that he was susceptible to provocation.
Held: The law jealously guards the role of . .
Cited – Coopers (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd v Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Schadlingsbekampfung mbH 1976
(Supreme Court of South Africa (Appellate Division)) Wessels JA said: ‘[A]n expert’s opinion represents his reasoned conclusion based on certain facts or data, which are either common cause, or established by his own evidence or that of some other . .
Cited – Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc 28-Jun-1993
United States Supreme Court – The court considered the Federal Rules of Evidence in the use of expert or skilled evidence: ‘If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to . .
Cited – Dingley v The Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police 1998
The court was asked whether the development of multiple sclerosis had been caused by physical injury sustained in a motor accident. Medical science was not able to demonstrate the connection between the two, and reliance was placed on . .
Cited – Field and Another v Leeds City Council CA 8-Dec-1999
The parties were involved in a dispute as to repairs on a tenanted property. The court had ordered an independent surveyor’s report. The claimant objected to the use by the defendant of an employee for this purpose, and was involved in their claims . .
Cited – Toth v Jarman CA 19-Jul-2006
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages for nervous shock, associated with the alleged negligence of the defendant doctor in treating his son. It was said that the medical expert had not disclosed a conflict of interest.
Held: . .
Cited – Pora v Regina PC 3-Mar-2015
Court of Appeal of New Zealand – the defendant appealed against his conviction (after two trials) for rape and murder. He said that hos confession should not have been admitted, being unreliable, and that evidence should have been admitted that . .
Cited – National Justice Compania Naviera S A v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (‘The Ikarian Reefer’) 1993
Cresswell J spoke of the nature of the duty owed by expert witnesses: ‘The duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses in civil cases include the following:
1. Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the . .
Cited – Mearns v Smedvig Limited and others SCS 25-Nov-1998
‘A party seeking to lead a witness with purported knowledge or experience outwith generally recognised fields would need to set up by investigation and evidence not only the qualifications and expertise of the individual skilled witness, but the . .
Cited – Main v McAndrew Wormald Ltd 1988
. .
Cited – Regina v Gilfoyle CACD 20-Dec-2000
The evidence of a psychological autopsy was not admissible in court proceedings. The field was not one with sufficiently established evidence of value and standards to allow it properly to be assessed. If it were allowed on behalf of the defence in . .
Cited – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Cited – Young v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 15-Nov-2013
The Court refused to admit evidence of ‘case linkage analysis’ because it was the subject of only relatively recent academic research and a methodology which was not yet sufficiently developed that it could be treated as reliable. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health and Safety, Personal Injury, Evidence
Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560126
The Claimant sought damages for diffuse pleural thickening and asbestosis caused by his exposure to asbestos dust during the course of his employment by the Defendant between June 1958 and November 1962. The defendant now appealed against entry of judgment against it and an award of interim damages.
Supperstone J
[2016] EWHC 80 (QB)
Bailii
Personal Injury, Negligence, Health and Safety
Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.559290
Sharp LJJ, Wilkie, Lang JJ
[2015] EWCA Crim 1620
Bailii
England and Wales
Crime, Health and Safety
Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553633
Protection of The Safety and Health of Workers – Weekly Rest Period : Judgment
C-306/16, [2017] EUECJ C-306/16
Bailii
European
Health and Safety
Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.599686
Lord Neuberger MR, Longmore, Sullivan LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 1250
Bailii
England and Wales
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551910
[1997] EWHC Admin 976
Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 11
England and Wales
Health and Safety, Employment
Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.137921
[2021] EWCA Crim 1693
Bailii
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
England and Wales
Crime, Health and Safety
Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.669848
Moore=Bick, Tomlinson LJJ, Sir Robin Jacob
[2015] EWCA Civ 189
Bailii
England and Wales
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544259
The claimants were personal representatives of passengers who had died in a helicopter crash. They alleged that StormHarbour was in breach of its duty as employers to provide Mr Dusek with a safe place of work, safe equipment and a safe system of working.
Hamblen J
[2015] EWHC 37 (QB)
Bailii
Fatal Accidents Act 1976, Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541572
Protection of the health and safety of consumers and workers – Directive 2006/42/EC – Safeguard clause – National measure of withdrawal from the market and prohibition of placing on the market of a pinsetter machine and a supplementary kit – Essential health and safety requirements – Commission decision declaring the measure justified – Equal treatment
T-152/19, [2021] EUECJ T-152/19, ECLI:EU:T:2021:539
Bailii
European
Health and Safety
Updated: 25 December 2021; Ref: scu.668086
The five claimants had been employed by the defendant. Whilst at work, and in breach of Health an Safety regulations, they had been exposed to complex halogenated platinum salts, and now claimed a sensitisation to such salts. The defendant argued that the sensitisation was not an injury capable of founding a claim.
Held: The claims failed.
Jay J said: ‘the scope of the rule of public policy in operation in these cases, and all cases of employers’ liability, is to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of employees from the careless acts and omissions of their employers; and, in the event of breach, where personal injury is suffered to require the payment of condign compensation. The concepts of health, safety and welfare, properly understood, embody the notion of protection from personal injury and not from economic or financial loss suffered without personal injury. Put another way, it is because the implied contractual duty is precisely conterminous with and reflects the obligations imposed by the law of tort – and, in particular, the tort of negligence – that the outcome must be the same however the cause of action is sought to be classified.’
Jay J
[2014] EWHC 3957 (QB), [2015] PIQR P10, [2014] CN 2094
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
At QBD – Greenway and Others v Johnson Matthey Plc CA 28-Apr-2016
The claimants had been exposed to platinum salts while employed by the defendant company in breach of the employer’s duties in negligence and Health and Safety. Though they had suffered no symptoms, they claimed in damages. The employer said that no . .
At QBD – Dryden and Others v Johnson Matthey Plc SC 21-Mar-2018
Sensitisation to salt can be personal injury
The claimants, had developed platinum salt sensitisation due to the defendant employer’s breach of health and safety regulations and common law duty, claimed a cause of action for personal injury. Platinum salt sensitisation is, in itself, an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539347
‘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 when there is a specific statutory offence under the Regulations covering exactly the same ground as section 6 but in different language so that different issues can arise as to the standard of safety which is required, and imposing a different penalty. The offence under the Regulations is the offence which gives effect to the Directive. In addition, the 1974 Act was there in the background. If there was an intention to prosecute for a different offence (not one covering exactly the same ground as the offence in the Regulations), I would take a different view. Partly as a matter of interpretation, and partly because it appears to me that it would be a form of misuse of the powers of the 1974 Act to rely on section 6, I have come to the conclusion that it was not open to the Executive to bring proceedings under section 6. They should have brought proceedings under the Regulations. It may be that the penalty under the Regulations is lower than it should be. If so, the Regulations should be amended. Indeed, I consider that attention should be given to the question of whether the penalties under the Regulations are sufficient. However, the person manufacturing the machinery to which the regime established by the Directive applies is entitled to have his conduct judged by the standards set in the Directive. Those standards are reflected in the Regulations, but not precisely reproduced by section 6 of the 1974 Act. Accordingly, I conclude that the decision of the District judge was wrong in that regard.’
Woolf LCJ, Wright J
[2002] EWHC 566
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Regina v Bristol Magistrates Court and others ex parte Junttan Oy HL 23-Oct-2003
The improper use of machinery had resulted in the death of an employee, and the applicant was prosecuted under the 1974 Act, but complained that the prosecution should have been under the Regulations. The directive required member states to apply . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Regina v Bristol Magistrates Court and others ex parte Junttan Oy HL 23-Oct-2003
The improper use of machinery had resulted in the death of an employee, and the applicant was prosecuted under the 1974 Act, but complained that the prosecution should have been under the Regulations. The directive required member states to apply . .
Cited – 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: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.187178
The respondent, Mrs Kennedy was working for the reclaimers as a carer. She had been injured walking up a snowy client’s path. The reclaimer appealed against an award for damages after a finding that she should have been provided with grips for her feet in these conditions.
Held: The reclaimer was granted. The Lord Ordinary had wrongly deferred to the expert, the failure to comply with the Management Regulations could not be a direct cause of injury, regulation 4(1) of the PPE Regulations did not apply to the circumstances of the accident.
Lady Smith, Lord Brodie, Lord Clarke
[2014] ScotCS CSIH – 76, 2014 Rep LR 127, 2014 SLT 984, 2015 SC 154, 2014 GWD 31-616
Bailii
Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
Scotland
Citing:
At Outer House – Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp SCS 7-Aug-2013
Outer House – damages after carer’s fall in snow.
Held: The Outer House found Cordia liable under the PPE Regulations, the Management Regulations, and the common law. Both risk assessments for Cordia had been faulty.
Lord McEwan . .
Cited by:
Cited – Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp SC 10-Feb-2016
The appellant care worker fell in snow when visiting the respondent’s client at home. At issue was the admission and status of expert or skilled evidence.
Held: Mrs Kennedy’s appeal succeeded. ‘There are in our view four considerations which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.537048
(Outer House -Court of Session) The pursuer was injured whilst measuring stairs for the possible installation of a stairlift.
Lady Stacey
[2014] ScotCS CSOH – 118
Bailii
Scotland, Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535590
(Outer House)
Lord Menzies
[2006] ScotCS CSOH – 5
Bailii
Scotland
Health and Safety
Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.239674
60908/11 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 836
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535275
The company appealed against its conviction for failing so far as reasonably practicable to ensure the health and safety of its employees. It said that the judge should have acceeded to a submission of no case to answer.
Fulford LJ, Foskett J, Neil Ford QC
[2014] EWCA Crim 1522
Bailii
Health and Safety at Work, etc, Act 1974
England and Wales
Crime, Health and Safety
Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.534640
REACH – Substances of very high concern – Establishment of a list of identified substances with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – Decision identifying the substance 4-tert-butylphenol as a substance meeting the criteria for inclusion in the list – Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – Weight of evidence approach – Manifest error of assessment – Proportionality
T-661/19, [2021] EUECJ T-661/19, ECLI:EU:T:2021:779
Bailii
European
Health and Safety
Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.670041
A school wrote a letter to a child’s parents saying that he would be permanently excluded after verbal violence against a teacher. This was said to have followed earlier serious and repeated problems of indiscipline. His appeal was successful, and he was returned to the class The teachers proposed a strike. The head teacher wrote to say that he could not guarantee the child’s health and safety at school. The Act only allows exclusion on disciplinary grounds. The reference to health and safety, and the implicit threat amounted to an unlawful exclusion.
Mr Justice Hooper
[2001] EWHC Admin 721, [2002] ELR 244
Bailii
School Standards and Framework Act 1998 64(4)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Begum, Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School Admn 15-Jun-2004
A schoolgirl complained that she had been excluded from school for wearing a form of attire which accorded with her Muslim beliefs.
Held: The school had made great efforts to establish what forms of wear were acceptable within the moslem . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Education, Children, Health and Safety
Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.166589
ECJ Order Of The Court – Preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Treatment of personal data – Directive 95/46/EC – Article 2 – Concept of ‘personal data’ – Articles 6 and 7 – Principles relating to the quality and data processing legitimate data – Article 17 – Security of processing – Working time workers – Registry of working time – Access to the competent national authority for monitoring working conditions – Obligation for the employer to provide the working time so register allow immediate consultation
C-683/13, [2014] EUECJ C-683/13 – CO
Bailii
European
Health and Safety
Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533726
‘whether or not the duty imposed by Regulation 9 is absolute, and does not require the proof of any fault on the part of the employer. Should the adequacy of the training given to an employee be judged by the result in the light of events or should it, as the judge held, be assessed in the light of what the employer knew about the risks at the time, even though, in the light of later events, it could be seen that the training had been inadequate? If neither if those tests is correct, what is the correct test?’
[2008] EWCA Civ 71, [2008] ICR 719, [2008] IRLR 440
Bailii
Fatal Accidents Act 1976, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 9
England and Wales
Damages, Health and Safety
Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.264496
Operation of the regime set out in EU law for inspection of meat products to ensure that proper standards of health and safety are maintained.
Lady Hale,
Lord Hodge,
Lady Black,
Lord Lloyd-Jones,
Lord Sales
Bailii, Bailii Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts
England and Wales
European, Health and Safety
Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.670326
Whether the contents of a Safety Alert Action Note issued by the Health and Safety Executive in the light of an inspector’s investigation into an accident in 2009 involving a fairground ride called The Crazy Frog breach the Provision of Services Regulations 2009
Mr Justice Beatson
[2012] EWHC 2364 (Admin)
Bailii
Provision of Services Regulations 2009
England and Wales
Health and Safety
Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.464266
ECJ Social policy – Directive 92/85/EEC – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding – Maternity leave – Maintenance of payment and/or entitlement to an adequate allowance – Directive 96/34/EC – Framework Agreement on parental leave – Individual right to parental leave on the grounds of the birth or adoption of a child – Working and remuneration conditions – National collective agreement – Female workers having taken maternity leave after interruption of a period of unpaid parental leave – Refusal to pay a salary during the maternity leave
M. Ilesic, P
C-512/11, [2014] EUECJ C-512/11
Bailii
European
Health and Safety
Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.521841
The claimant was a lorry driver making collections from a power station. On his visits, he visited areas where asbestos sludge was being used. He contracted mesothelioma, and now sought damages. The defendants replied that he was not a worker at the plant within section 47. He now appeaed against rejection of his claim.
Held: The appeal failed. A person visiting the premises of a different employer where a process was under way likely to be injurious to health, was not a worker so as to receive the protection of the 1937 Act.
However, he was owed a duty under the 1931 Regulations.
Lord Dyson MR, McCombe, Gloster LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1346, [2013] WLR(D) 431
Bailii, WLRD
Factories Act 1937 47(1), The Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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.
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517455
A railway worker’s widow sought compensation after her husband was killed by a train.
Held: He had been involved in routine maintenance and oiling at the time of the accident and was not ‘relaying or repairing’ tracks. She was not entitled to compensation.
Lord Porter said that the word ‘repair’ contains ‘some suggestion of putting right that which is wrong’.
Lord MacMillan said: ‘I recognise that when Parliament employs technical terms without definition in a statute dealing with a particular art or industry, courts of law are entitled to have the assistance of skilled persons in the interpretation of such terms. Indeed the present statute and rules contain numerous technical terms as to whose meaning in railway parlance evidence would be almost indispensable.’
Lord Simonds said that a person is ‘not to be put in peril upon an ambiguity, however much the purpose of the Act appeals to the predilection of the court.’
and ‘It is only by reference to the industry that the meaning can be ascertained . . It remains a question of evidence what the words mean in the industry. They are a term of art and it is by those skilled in the art that I must be instructed.’
Lord Simonds, Lord Porter, Lord MacMillan
[1946] AC 278, [1946] 1 All ER 255, 115 LJKB 124
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hereford and Worcester County Council v Newman CA 1975
The council had been found responsible by the magistrates for allowing footpaths to be ‘out of repair’. The paths were unusable for various reasons including having a hawthorn hedge growing down the middle, and having barbed wire fencing strung . .
Cited – Department for Transport, Environment and the Regions v Mott Macdonald Ltd and others CA 27-Jul-2006
Claims arose from accidents caused by standing water on roadway surfaces after drains had not been cleared by the defendants over a long period of time. The Department appealed a decision giving it responsibility under a breach of statutory duty . .
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, Personal Injury
Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.200610
The normal rule that penal statutes must be strictly construed has not been allowed to stand in the way of the protection given to the workman by the statutory language. The House considered the requirement under section 14(1) of the 1937 Act that ‘Every dangerous part of any machinery . . shall be securely fenced unless it is in such a position or of such construction as to be as safe to every person employed or working on the premises as it would be if securely fenced’, and had applied to the concept of dangerousness an approach dating back to Hindle v Birtwhistle [1897] 1 QB 192, namely that a machine or part is dangerous ‘if in the ordinary course of human affairs danger may reasonably be anticipated from the use of them without protection’, and that it was ‘impossible to say that because an accident had happened once therefore the machine was dangerous’. Lords Reid and Keith at pp 765-766 and 774 expressly endorsed the relevance of determining whether the degree of danger was such that there was ‘a reasonably foreseeable cause of injury’.
Lord Reid aid that an employer considering the use of dangerous equipment must allow for possible lapses by a workman.
Viscount Simonds said that it was elementary that it is necessary to consider not only the risk run by a skilled and careful man who never relaxes his vigilance.
Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid
[1955] AC 740, [1955] 1 All ER 870
Factories Act 1937 14(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 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 – Robb v Salamis (M and I) Ltd HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimant was injured working for the defendants on a semi-submersible platform. He fell from a ladder which was not secured properly. He alleged a breach of the Regulations. The defendant denied any breach and asserted that the claimant had . .
Cited – Robb v Salamis (M and I) Ltd HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimant was injured working for the defendants on a semi-submersible platform. He fell from a ladder which was not secured properly. He alleged a breach of the Regulations. The defendant denied any breach and asserted that the claimant had . .
Cited – 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, Negligence
Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.198670
Outer House – damages after carer’s fall in snow.
Held: The Outer House found Cordia liable under the PPE Regulations, the Management Regulations, and the common law. Both risk assessments for Cordia had been faulty.
Lord McEwan summarised the expert evidence: He then looked at the risk assessments. Agreeing in general with the later evidence of Miss Rodger, he said account had to be taken of controls to overcome hazards before any rating could be arrived at. However, he said that in his opinion the measures specified did not reduce the risk. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) should have been provided. He was critical of the omission of ‘inclement weather’ in [the 2010 risk assessment]. Such weather did not cease to be a hazard and simply to rate the risk as ‘tolerable’ did not take account of changes in the risk when seriously adverse weather could and did occur that winter. This risk could be eliminated altogether by not going to the house, but accepting the need to go, the employer (his emphasis) should choose and supply the correct footwear which was available at that time. That was not done . .
Being asked again about research papers he said some were surveys and some were lists. He agreed that icy and snowy surfaces varied and shoe attachments varied in their reaction to these. He described in detail how Yaktrax performed and how he had used his own set for 18 months in snow and ice. He said that they reduced the risk although there was no one answer to the problem. Everyone still had to take care. Had he done a risk assessment for Miss Kennedy’s job he would have assessed the risk as likely and the severity as harmful. It was for the employer to find out what PPE was best and in his opinion they should have provided Yaktrax or some other type of fitting.
. . under reference to the [British Standard], he said that the assessment of the risk should have been ‘substantial’. Slipping and falling could give a variety of serious injuries. What the employer had to do was reduce or eliminate the risk. That would have been done if Yaktrax had been provided.’
Lord McEwan
[2013] ScotCS CSOH – 130
Bailii
Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
Scotland
Cited by:
At Outer House – Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp SCS 19-Sep-2014
The respondent, Mrs Kennedy was working for the reclaimers as a carer. She had been injured walking up a snowy client’s path. The reclaimer appealed against an award for damages after a finding that she should have been provided with grips for her . .
At Outer House – Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp SC 10-Feb-2016
The appellant care worker fell in snow when visiting the respondent’s client at home. At issue was the admission and status of expert or skilled evidence.
Held: Mrs Kennedy’s appeal succeeded. ‘There are in our view four considerations which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Updated: 18 November 2021; Ref: scu.514285
Pittaway QC HHJ
[2013] EWHC 2349 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Updated: 18 November 2021; Ref: scu.514259
