The defendant was the occupier of premises. He did not direct how the work should be done and was not present at the time the work was being performed.
Held: He had not been in control of the relevant work. Judge LJ referred to Regulation 4(2) of the 1996 Regulations and said: ‘The requisite level of control before the duty does arise, however, is linked to the way in which construction work is carried out and it is confined to construction work within the individual’s control. For this purpose the obvious person who controls the way in which construction work on site is carried out is an employer. The employer owes express duties under regulation 4(1). That, therefore, identifies the starting point. But someone who is not an employer may also be bound by the statutory obligation under regulation 4(2). Whether the appropriate level of control over the work is or should be exercised by an individual other than an employer so as to create the duty to comply with the obligations under regulation 4(2) is, in my judgment, a question of fact. It is not answered affirmatively by demonstrating that an individual has control over the site in a general sense as an occupier, or that as the occupier of the site he was entitled to ask or require a contractor to remove obvious hazards from the site. The required control is related to control over the work of construction’
Hale LJ underlined that the issue of control was an issue of fact, saying: ‘Regulation 4(2) of the 1996 Regulations to my mind depends entirely on the question of factual control.’
Judges:
Judge LJ, Hale LJ
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 1760, [2003] ICR 89
Links:
Statutes:
Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Ferguson v Welsh HL 29-Oct-1987
The plaintiff sought damages for personal injury. A council had engaged a competent contractor to carry out demolition works. Unknown to the council, the contractor sub-contracted the works to two brothers who worked in a highly dangerous manner. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Gray v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd and others QBD 3-Mar-2006
The deceased, a maintenance engineer died after falling through a skylight at work. The court considered the respective liabilities of his employer and the landowner. . .
Cited – Gray v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd and others QBD 3-Mar-2006
The deceased, a maintenance engineer died after falling through a skylight at work. The court considered the respective liabilities of his employer and the landowner. . .
Cited – Kmiecic v Isaacs QBD 12-Mar-2010
The claimant sought damages after suffering injury when falling from a ladder working on the uninsured builder’s site. He sued the owners of the property, saying that by refusing to allow or pay for the work to be conducted in safer ways, she had . .
Cited – Barrett v Kirklees Metropolitan Council Admn 12-Mar-2010
The claimant challenged the policy of the defendant to pay support to special guardians appointed under the 2002 Act at two thirds only of the rate it paid in fostering allowance.
Held: The policy was a substantial and insufficiently justified . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Construction, Health and Safety
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.217850