The appellant was employed by the first respondents as a steam cleaning operative. The first respondent had contracted to supply cleaning services to the second respondent at one of the second respondent’s yards, where buses were cleaned. The appellant’s place of employment was at that yard. The yard was iced and despite attempts to grit the ice, he slipped and was injured. His claim had been dismissed because he had not been engaged in operations at the time.
Held: The task of moving the grit was itself a handling process. Appeal allowed.
Judges:
Lord Justice Henry And Lord Justice Kay
Citations:
Times 07-Feb-2001, [2000] EWCA Civ 314
Links:
Statutes:
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 4(1)(a), Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 12(3)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lonsdale v Howard and Hallam Ltd CA 8-Feb-2006
The claimant sought damages after his agency with the defendants was terminated. The central issue was whether compensation was to be calculated at two years commission as derived from French practice or otherwise.
Held: ‘there is no clear . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147347
