Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Health and Safety - From: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 29 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Regina (on the application of Junttan Oy) v Bristol Magistrates' Court [2002] EWHC 566
2002
QBD
Woolf LCJ, Wright J
Health and Safety
"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."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Kerr v North Ayrshire Council [2002] ScotCS 13
16 Jan 2002
SCS
Lady Smith
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
The claimant sought damages for personal injuries after injuring her back at work as a caretaker. She alleged a failure to provide a safe system of work. She was asked to move folding tables weighing up to 30lbs. They were to be stored vertically. She hurt her back lifting one from the vertical to a horizontal axis. No training had been given in how the tables were to be moved. Held: A breach of the duty to make an assessment does not in itself gives rise to liability in damages. The steps proposed to reduce the risk were not practicable in the circumstances, and the claim failed.
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2793)
[ Bailii ]

 
 Betts v Tokley; CA 18-Jan-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 52
 
England v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 77
22 Jan 2002
CA

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Barnett v Scottish Power (T/A Manweb Metering Business) [2002] EWCA Civ 104
30 Jan 2002
CA

Health and Safety

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992
[ Bailii ]

 
 Sutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar; CA 5-Feb-2002 - Times, 12 February 2002; Gazette, 21 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 76; [2002] 2 All ER 1; [2002] ICR 613; [2002] PIQR P221; [2002] Emp LR 288; [2002] IRLR 263; (2002) 68 BMLR 115
 
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany C-5/00 [2002] EUECJ C-5/00
7 Feb 2002
ECJ

Health and Safety
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - -Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work - Articles 9(1)(a) and 10(3)(a) - Employer's duty to keep documents containing an assessment of the risks to safety and health at work.
Council Directive 89/391/EEC
[ Bailii ]
 
Mutuma v London Borough of Barnet [2002] EWCA Civ 308
25 Feb 2002
CA

Health and Safety

[ Bailii ]
 
McGarvey v Eve NCI Ltd and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 374
26 Feb 2002
CA

Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Falling from ladder at work
[ Bailii ]
 
Volex Group Plc v Jane Wilson Evans [2002] EWCA Civ 225
27 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann Lord Justice Chadwick And Sir Christopher Staughton
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
The claimant sought damages after she breathed noxious fumes at her place of work. It was said that she had been told that she could leave her machine to get fresh air as she wished, but the judge had found that she had not appreciated that this was intended to mean that she need not face the fumes at all. Held: The nature of the fumes had not been established, and the cause of the illness had not been established. Accordingly the liability of the employers could not be established. The employer's appeal was allowed.
Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994
[ Bailii ]
 
Butcher v Cornwall County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 559
11 Apr 2002
CA

Health and Safety

[ Bailii ]
 
Abrahams v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2002] EWCA Civ 572
11 Apr 2002
CA
Hale LJ
Personal Injury, Health and Safety

[ Bailii ]
 
Todd and Others v Adams and Another Times, 03 May 2002; Gazette, 23 May 2002; [2002] 2 Lloyds Law Rep 293; [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 1
18 Apr 2002
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Mance and Mr Justice Neuberger
Transport, Health and Safety, Damages, Litigation Practice
The boat owners had failed to comply with the 1975 safety rules, and seamen died. The boat owners relied upon the restriction on damages in the 1995 Act, and the seamen's families argued that the failure to apply the safety rules removed that limitation. Held: A breach of the safety rules did not give rise to a separate cause of action for damages against the ship owners. The system for certifying vessels would sit uneasily with any other interpretation, and a criminal remedy was also provided for. The court distinguished between challenges to conclusions of primary fact or inferences from those facts and an evaluation of those facts.
Mance LJ said: "With regard to an appeal to this court (which would never have involved a complete rehearing in that sense), the language of 'review' may be said to fit most easily into the context of an appeal against the exercise of a discretion, or an appeal where the court of appeal is essentially concerned with the correctness of an exercise of evaluation or judgment—such as a decision by a lower court whether, weighing all relevant factors, a contract of service existed. However, the references in rule 52.11(3)(4) to the power of an appellate court to allow an appeal where the decision below was 'wrong' and to 'draw any inference of fact which it considers justified on the evidence' indicate that there are other contexts in which the court of appeal must, as previously, make up its own mind as to the correctness or otherwise of a decision, even on matters of fact, by a lower court. Where the correctness of a finding of primary fact or of inference is in issue, it cannot be a matter of simple discretion how an appellant court approaches the matter. Once the appellant has shown a real prospect (justifying permission to appeal) that a finding or inference is wrong, the role of an appellate court is to determine whether or not this is so, giving full weight of course to the advantages enjoyed by any judge of first instance who has heard oral evidence. . In the present case, therefore, I consider that (a) it is for us if necessary to make up our own mind about the correctness or otherwise of any findings of primary fact or inferences from primary fact that the judge made or drew and the claimants challenge, while (b) reminding ourselves that, so far as the appeal raises issues of judgment on unchallenged primary findings and inferences, this court ought not to interfere unless it is satisfied that the judge's conclusion lay outside the bounds within which reasonable disagreement is possible. In relation to (a) we must, as stated, bear in mind the important and well-recognised reluctance of this court to interfere with a trial judge on any finding of primary fact based on the credibility or reliability of oral evidence. In the present case, however, while there was oral evidence, its content was largely uncontentious."
Neuberger J stressed that the question whether there was a contract of service on the facts involved the weighing up of a series of factors.
Merchant Shipping Act 1995 185(1) - Fishing (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975 (SI 1975 No 330) 16
1 Citers


 
Butler v Grampian University Hospitals NHS Trust [2002] ScotCS 142; 2002 SLT 985
22 May 2002
SCS
Lord MacFadyen
Scotland, Health and Safety

1 Citers

[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Davis and Another v Balfour Kilpatrick Ltd and others [2002] EWCA Civ 736
23 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Tuckey And Mr Justice Jackson
Health and Safety, Personal Injury, Human Rights
The claimants sought damages for sickness they claimed arose from exposure to radiation when erecting radio transmitter masts. The risk had been recognised, and a safety assessment undertaken and adjustments made to the transmitter power before work began, to reduce the levels below those recommended by the NRPB. The judge did not find evidence of exposure to excess levels, but failed to make a finding as to causation. He dismissed the claim. Held: There was no obligation on a judge to make a finding on every averment. Some common sense must be applied. There were no grounds for challenging the judge's assessment of the evidence. Riggers on transmission masts work in an environment where they are exposed to unknown dangers, because scientific knowledge is incomplete. Human rights issues were raised because one of the operators of the mast was a public body, the BBC. Nevertheless this point had arisen only on appeal, and the judge could not be criticised for failing to develop creative points.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Gilmour v East Renfrewshire Council [2002] ScotCS 152
29 May 2002
SCS
Lord Drummond Young
Scotland, Health and Safety

1 Citers

[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and Others; HL 20-Jun-2002 - Times, 21 June 2002; [2002] UKHL 22; [2003] 1 AC 32; [2002] Lloyds Rep Med 361; [2002] 3 All ER 305; [2002] PIQR P28; (2002) 67 BMLR 90; [2002] 3 WLR 89; [2002] ICR 798
 
Sussex Ambulance NHS Trust v King Times, 25 July 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 953
5 Jul 2002
CA
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President, Lord Justice Buxton and Lady Justice Hale
Negligence, Personal Injury, Health and Safety
The claimant was an ambulance worker. He had been assisting carrying a patient down stairs in a chair. He was injured when his colleague lost his grip, and he suddenly bore the full weight of the patient and chair. He alleged that under the regulations and the directive, the employer should have considered requesting the patient to be moved by the Fire Service. Held: There was nothing to suggest that it would have been practicable to call the Fire Service. Giving greater prominence to that possibility in training would not have made a difference in this particular case. Though this case failed, another case might succeed for failure to provide appropriate equipment for the task to be undertaken.
Manual Handling Directive 1990 (90/269/EEC) - Manual Handling Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 2793)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Coxall v Goodyear Great Britain Limited; CA 22-Jul-2002 - Times, 05 August 2002; Gazette, 03 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1010
 
Thames Trains Ltd v The Health and Safety Executive [2002] EWHC 1415 (QB)
23 Jul 2002
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Morland
Health and Safety, Transport

[ Bailii ]

 
 O'Neill v DSG Retail Ltd; CA 31-Jul-2002 - Times, 09 September 2002; Gazette, 17 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1139; [2003] ICR 222
 
Evans v Thistle Hotels [2002] EWCA Civ 1394
6 Sep 2002
CA

Health and Safety
Claimant's application for leave to appeal against rejection of personal injury claim against employer.
[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Italy (Judgment) C-455/00; [2002] EUECJ C-455/00
24 Oct 2002
ECJ

European, Health and Safety
Europa Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 9(3) of Directive 90/270/EEC - Protection of workers' eyes and eyesight - Special corrective appliances appropriate for the work concerned - Incomplete transposition.
[ Bailii ]
 
Horton v Taplin Contracts Limited Times, 25 November 2002; Gazette, 09 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1604; [2003] ICR 179
8 Nov 2002
CA
Mr Justice Bodey, Lord Justice Rix, Lord Justice Mantell
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
The employee claimed damages after injury at work using scaffolding equipment supplied by his employers which was upset by the violent act of a fellow employee. Held: The equipment when used properly was safe. It only became dangerous if deliberately misused. The employer could not be vicariously liable for the deliberate wrongful act of a co-employee. That mischief was not foreseeable under the 1992 Regulations. A step is only realistically "necessary" when the mischief to be guarded against can be reasonably foreseen.
Provision and Use of Work Eqipment Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2932) 20 - Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) regulations 1996 (1996 No 1592) 5
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Charles v Cardiff County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1753
18 Nov 2002
CA

Personal Injury, health and Safety
The claimant was assaulted whilst at work at a residential care home. She answered the door to visitors who were drunk. She appealed a refusal of her claim against her employers. Held: The judge had sufficient evidence before him to establish that the absence of a chain on the door was not a breach of statutory duty. The appeal failed.
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 - Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992
[ Bailii ]
 
Mccook v Lobo and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1760; [2003] ICR 89
19 Nov 2002
CA
Judge LJ, Hale LJ
Personal Injury, Construction, Health and Safety
The defendant was the occupier of premises. He did not direct how the work should be done and was not present at the time the work was being performed. Held. He had not been in control of the relevant work. Judge LJ referred to Regulation 4(2) of the 1996 Regulations and said: "The requisite level of control before the duty does arise, however, is linked to the way in which construction work is carried out and it is confined to construction work within the individual's control. For this purpose the obvious person who controls the way in which construction work on site is carried out is an employer. The employer owes express duties under regulation 4(1). That, therefore, identifies the starting point. But someone who is not an employer may also be bound by the statutory obligation under regulation 4(2). Whether the appropriate level of control over the work is or should be exercised by an individual other than an employer so as to create the duty to comply with the obligations under regulation 4(2) is, in my judgment, a question of fact. It is not answered affirmatively by demonstrating that an individual has control over the site in a general sense as an occupier, or that as the occupier of the site he was entitled to ask or require a contractor to remove obvious hazards from the site. The required control is related to control over the work of construction"
Hale LJ underlined that the issue of control was an issue of fact, saying: "Regulation 4(2) of the 1996 Regulations to my mind depends entirely on the question of factual control."
Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Dugmore v Swansea NHS Trust and Another Times, 09 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1689
21 Nov 2002
CA
Tuckey, Hale, LJJ, Sir Denis Hale
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
The claimant had become sensitive to latex dust while working for the first employer, then suffered an anaphylactic shock when coming into contact with the dust while employed by the second. Held: The regulations required that 'every employer shall ensure that the exposure of his employee to a substance hazardous to health is either prevented, or where this is not reasonably practicable, adequately controlled.' The words were clear. The duty was absolute except for reasonable practicality, when the duty was simply to ensure adequate protection. There was no limitation on the second limb to allow for relative risk, or reasonable practicality.
Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 (1988 No 1657) - Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994 (1994 No 3246) - Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1999 (1999 No 437) 7
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Davies v Health and Safety Executive; CACD 18-Dec-2002 - [2002] EWCA Crim 2949; [2003] ICR 586; [2003] IRLR 170
 
Davies v Health and Safety Executive Times, 27 December 2002
18 Dec 2002
CA
Tuckey LJ, Douglas Brown, Gordon JJ
Health and Safety, Human Rights
The defendant complained that section 40 imposed a burden of proof upon him which infringed the presumption of innocence and his right to a fair trial. The trial judge held that the burden imposed a legal burden rather than an evidential one. Held: The Act could not be read down so as to impose only an evidential burden on the defendant. The court applied the three stage test from Kebilene, asking what the prosecution had first to prove to transfer the burden, then what are the characteristics of what the defendant had to prove, and what was the threat to society addressed by the transfer of the burden. Here, there was no threat of imprisonment, and enforcement would be impossible without such a transfer.
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 33(1)(a) 40
1 Cites


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.