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: 2003 To: 2003
This page lists 28 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
Regina v Davies; CACD 2003 - [2003] ICR 586 (CA)
Bernard v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] EWHC 147 (Admin)
30 Jan 2003
Admn
Henriques J
Health and Safety
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
[ Bailii ]
Smith v Gatwick Airport Ltd [2003] EWHC 233 (Admin)
11 Feb 2003
Admn
Health and Safety
Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 3(1)
[ Bailii ]
Naylor v Volex Group Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 222
14 Feb 2003
CA
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994 6 7(1)
[ Bailii ]
Gallagher v Kleinwort Benson (Trustees) Limited and others [2003] ScotCS 66; 2003 SCLR 384
12 Mar 2003
SCS
Lord Reed
European, Health and Safety
Framework Directive (89/31)
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
Hislop v Lynx Express Parcels; IHCS 3-Apr-2003 - Times, 17 April 2003; [2003] ScotCS 98
Transco Plc v Griggs [2003] EWCA Civ 564
16 Apr 2003
CA
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
[ Bailii ]
W A Duthie v Bath and North East Somerset Council Times, 16 May 2003; EAT/561/02; Gazette, 03 July 2003; [2003] EAT 0561_02_2904; [2003] UKEAT 0561_02_2904
29 Apr 2003
EAT
Ansell J
Employment, Health and Safety
The claimant said he had not been given time off from work to attend relevant health and safety training courses. The company responded that the regulations had been repealed, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction. Held: Jurisdiction was maintained under the Regulations. Those Regulations referred to the 1974 Act. After the repeal of the 1974 Act, the case of White applied the same regulations to the successor Act by virtue of the transitional provisions. That Act had now itself been replaced, and a similar logic was now to be used to extend the Regulations to the current Act. Accordingly the jurisdiction of both the employment tribunal and employment appeal tribunal to determine questions under the regulations continued in effect.
Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 (1977 No 500) 4(2) 11(5) - Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 - Employment Tribunals Act 1996 - Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 128
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Wandsworth, Regina (on the Application Of) v South Western Magistrates Court [2003] EWHC 1158 (Admin)
1 May 2003
Admn
Health and Safety, Magistrates
The HSE sought answers from the company, and prosecuted when it got none. They sought judicial review of the magistrates decision to refuse a case stated. Held: The answers sought were under a section which disallowed any prosecution of the person answering, and therefore the section was to be construed widely. As such there was a clear power to require answers, including answers in writing. The case was remitted to be heard by a different tribunal.
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 20(2)(j) - Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1989
[ Bailii ]
Ziemniak v ETPM Deep Sea Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 636; Times, 15 May 2003
7 May 2003
CA
Aldous, Mummery, Rix LJJ
Health and Safety
A seaman was injured taking part in a safety drill aboard ship. The defendant had been found not to be negligent, but the claimant alleged breach of statutory duty under the Regulations. Held: Groves v Wimborne clearly established that parliament was to be taken to have intended to proivide a remedy in damages for breach of the regulations. The section intended bring working conditions on board a ship into line with conditions prevailing on land. Todd could properly be distinguished, and an action for damages would lie.
Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) Regulations 1980 (1980 No 538) 43(10)
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Fytche v Wincanton Logistics Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 874; [2003] ICR 1582
12 May 2003
CA
Waller LJ
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
A milk lorry driver was issued with protective boots. Stuck in a snowstorm, he tried to dig himself out. The boots leaked and he suffered frostbite. Held: The compulsory element under the regulations is taken into account in the standard of care which the employer must observe to comply with his duty of care to the employees. The claimant recognised that he could not succeed in proving a breach of the duty of care, and his claim failed.
Waller LJ said: "I stress the standard of care will be a high one. Where the employer is asking the employee to wear particular footwear or clothing in place of the employee's own, I would suggest that rightly the court would impose a high duty on an employer. But in the circumstances of this case the tiny hole was undiscoverable either by the employers or the claimant and the findings of the recorder negatived any such breach."
Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Knott v Newham Healthcare NHS Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 771
13 May 2003
CA
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Bell, Multiple claimants v Ministry of Defence (1) and (2) Times, 29 May 2003; [2003] EWHC 1134 (QB)
21 May 2003
QBD
Owen J
Armed Forces, Health and Safety, Personal Injury
The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury for stress and anxiety in being engaged on the behalf of the respondent in the course of combat. Held: The defendant had no duty to maintain a safe system of work for military personnel during combat operations. The term 'combat' must be given a wide meaning. The immunity was not limited to accasions when an enemy was present, but extended to all activities directed against an enemy where the service personnel were at risk of attack themselves.
Crown Proceedings Act 1947
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Commission v Netherlands C-441/01; [2003] EUECJ C-441/01
22 May 2003
ECJ
European, Health and Safety
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 89/391/EEC - Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work - Article 7(3).
Directive 89/391/EEC 7(3)
[ Bailii ]
Health and Safety Executive v Thames Trains Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 720
22 May 2003
CA
Negligence, Transport, Health and Safety
[ Bailii ]
Bonser v UK Coal Mining Ltd Times, 30 June 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 1296; [2004] IRLR 164
9 Jun 2003
CA
Lord Phillips MR
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
The employer appealed a finding that it was responsible in negligence to a staff member for stress related injury at work. The claimant had worked in the coal industry for 20 years, but she had then been made redundant. The defendants took her on as their Technical Support and Training Manager. Her reference said that she "would not be particularly good in a highly stressful environment but she is good at dealing with IT users, training and communication." She had a pre-existing emotional vulnerability but this was not apparent to the defendants. Held: Lord Phillips MR said: "An employer will be in breach of duty to an employee if the employer subjects the employee to severe pressure of work in circumstances where the employer knows, or ought reasonably to foresee, that this is likely to cause the employee to suffer some form of breakdown which results in psychiatric injury. Happily most employees are sufficiently robust to withstand the stress of a heavy workload. Thus it is normally necessary to demonstrate, before breach of duty can be established, that the employer had particular reason to apprehend the danger that such injury would be caused to the individual employee." The defendants did not have reason to apprehend the danger and accordingly were not liable when she broke down.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Commission v Portugal C-425/01; [2003] EUECJ C-425/01
12 Jun 2003
ECJ
European, Health and Safety
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Incomplete transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC - Safety and health of workers.
Directive 89/391/EEC
[ Bailii ]
Nolan v Anderson and Innes Ltd and Another [2003] ScotSC 41
9 Jul 2003
ScSf
Scotland, Health and Safety
[ Bailii ]
Davidson v Lothian and Borders Fire Board [2003] ScotCS 203
18 Jul 2003
IHCS
Lord Marnoch, Lord Hamilton, Lord Macfadyen
Scotland, Health and Safety, Personal Injury
The pursuer, a firefighter, sought damages for injury incurred during a drill. The drill involved manipulating a ladder, which was caught by the wind, a known risk in such exercises. Held: The defenders had failed to discharge the burden on them of establishing that all appropriate steps were taken to reduce the risk of injury to the pursuer and his fellow employees to the lowest level reasonably practicable, as was required of them under Regulations.
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 4(1)(b)
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Collins v Tesco Stores Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1308
24 Jul 2003
CA
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
[ Bailii ]
Thomson v Kvaerner Govan Limited; HL 31-Jul-2003 - [2003] UKHL 45; 2003 SCLR 765; 2004 SLT 24; [2004] PIQR P7; 2004 SC (HL) 1
Landeshauptstadt Kiel v Norbert Jaeger; ECJ 9-Sep-2003 - C-151/02; Times, 26 September 2003; [2003] EUECJ C-151/02; [2004] ICR 1528; (2004) 75 BMLR 201; [2003] 3 CMLR 16; [2003] ECR I-8389; [2004] All ER (EC) 604; [2003] IRLR 804
Landeshauptstadt Kiel v Norbert Jaeger; ECJ 9-Sep-2003 - C-151/02; Times, 26 September 2003; [2003] EUECJ C-151/02; [2004] ICR 1528; (2004) 75 BMLR 201; [2003] 3 CMLR 16; [2003] ECR I-8389; [2004] All ER (EC) 604; [2003] IRLR 804
Regina v Bristol Magistrates Court and others ex parte Junttan Oy [2002] UKHL 55; Times, 24 October 2003; Gazette, 20 November 2003; [2004] 2 All ER 555; [2004] Eu LR 134; [2003] ICR 1475
23 Oct 2003
HL
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett
Health and Safety, European
The improper use of machinery had resulted in the death of an employee, and the applicant was prosecuted under the 1974 Act, but complained that the prosecution should have been under the Regulations. The directive required member states to apply its regulations in replacement of any earlier legislation. The 1974 Act, it said was therefore outdated. Held: The employer could be prosecuted either under the 1974 Act or under the machinery regulations. The Regulations were designed to implement the Directive by working alongside the 1974 Act, rather than by replacing it, and the Regulations explicitly preserved the power to prosecute under the 1974 Act. However, the Secretary had failed to notify the EC of the prohibition of the machinery, and therefore the prosecution must in any event fail.
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 6 - Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 29(2) - Directive 98/37/EC
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
Gilmour v East Renfrewshire Council [2003] ScotCS 302; 2004 Rep Lr 40
5 Dec 2003
OHCS
J Gordon Reid QC
Scotland, Health and Safety
The pursuer, a teacher slipped on a potato chip on a ramp leading from the school kitchen. Held: Given the nature of the flooring and the slope of the ramp there was a real risk of slipping, which was increased by the presence of the chip. The defenders were in breach of an absolute duty under regulation 5(1). Regulation 12(3) had also been infringed in that the chip presented a real risk of injury, and it would have been reasonably practicable for the defenders to have kept the surface free of such dangerous substances.
J Gordon Reid QC said that it is "common in personal injury litigation for a set of circumstances to fall within the scope of several parts of the same regulations or even within the scope of several different sets of regulations."
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 5(1) 12(3)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
Pullen, Regina (on the Application Of) v Health and Safety Executive [2003] EWHC 2934 (QB)
10 Dec 2003
QBD
Health and Safety
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
[ Bailii ]
Pullen, Regina (on the Application Of) v Health and Safety Executive [2003] EWHC 2934 (Admin)
10 Dec 2003
Admn
Administrative, Health and Safety
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
[ Bailii ]
Yorkshire Traction Company Limited v Searby [2003] EWCA Civ 1856
19 Dec 2003
CA
Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice May Lord Justice Pill
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Buses had not been fitted with safety screens protecting drivers from possible assaults by passengers. Held: There was no breach of regulation 4: "... It does not follow that liability is established simply by showing that it is reasonably foreseeable that the absence of a screen may leave the way open to injury to the driver. A consideration of the degree of risk involved in the absence of a screen is also necessary in assessing suitability".
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
