Coia v Portavadie Estates Ltd: SCS 6 Jan 2015

(Extra Division Inner House) ‘In this action for damages for personal injury three central issues arise:
(1) Was the wardrobe pole which fell and injured the pursuer ‘work equipment provided by the defenders for use or used by an employee of theirs at work’ for the purpose of The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 when the accident happened?
(2) Was the pursuer at work when the accident happened?
(3) Was the lodge in which the accident happened a workplace for the purpose of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 when the accident happened? The pursure was a chef working for the defenders, satying at residential accomodation provided by them. The appellant sustained injury when he was removing his own personal possessions from a wardrobe in premises that he occupied otherwise than as a result of his contract of employment with the defenders.
Held: The answer to thr first question was ‘No’, and ‘The appellant was not at work when the accident happened – he was removing his personal possessions from the accommodation which he occupied, but there was nothing in the evidence to establish that he was doing so as a result of an instruction given to him in the course of his employment rather than in the context of his agreement with the defenders that he should be permitted to occupy the lodge on a temporary basis. The lodge was not, at the time of the accident, a workplace for the purpose of the workplace regulations. ‘

Lord Menzies
[2015] ScotCS CSIH – 3
Bailii
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
Scotland

Scotland, Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.540499

Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV (1): ECJ 5 Oct 2004

pfeiffer_deutchesrotesreuzECJ102004

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
Citing:
ApprovedLandeshauptstadt 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 . .

Cited by:
CitedGreenalls 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 . .
CitedAttridge 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 . .
CitedEnglish 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 . .
CitedBritish 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 . .
CitedO’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 . .
CitedTwentieth 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 . .
CitedForensic 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 . .
CitedBritish 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, European, Health and Safety, Transport, Employment, Health and Safety

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.215895

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 period – On-call service (Bereitschaftsdienst) provided by doctors in hospitals.
Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Concepts of working time and rest period – On-call service (Bereitschaftsdienst) provided by doctors in hospitals
Where a doctor was required to be on hospital premises whilst he was ‘on-call’, the full on call duty was to be counted for the purposes of the working time Directive. This applied equally to periods in which he would be entitled to rest. Such periods of inactivity were part and parcel of on-call duties. There was a need for doctors to be available for emergencies and such rest could not be planned. ”working time’ shall mean any period during which the worker is working, at the employer’s disposal and carrying out his activity or duties, in accordance with national laws and/or practice”.

GC Rodriguez Iglesias, President, M Wathelet, R Schintgen (Rapporteur) and CWA Timmermans, Presidents of Chambers, C Gulmann, DAO Edward, P Jann, V Skouris, F Macken, N Colneric, S von Bahr, JN Cunha Rodrigues and A Rosas
C-151/02, Times 26-Sep-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
Bailii
Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time.
European
Citing:
CitedSindicato de Medicos de Asistancia Publica (SIMAP) v Colsilieria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana ECJ 3-Oct-2000
Doctors working in primary health care teams are subject to the Working Time Directive. They are not to be assimilated as public service workers alongside emergency services. All time on call was working time and overtime if present at a health . .

Cited by:
CitedBritish Airways Plc v Williams and Others CA 3-Apr-2009
The company appealed against an adverse finding on its holiday pay payments to its pilots, saying that the pay was subject to the 2004 Regulations alone. The Directive suggested that holiday pay should be at normal average rates of pay, but the . .
CitedMacCartney v Oversley House Management EAT 31-Jan-2006
EAT The Tribunal erred in law in holding that the Appellant had received the rest breaks to which she was entitled under reg 12 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. Gallagher v Alpha Catering Services Ltd [2005] . .
CitedHughes v Jones and Another EAT 3-Oct-2008
EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONS
NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE
A care worker in a residential home who was provided with accommodation so that she could discharge her duty to be on call for the residents 11 hours . .
ApprovedPfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV (1) ECJ 5-Oct-2004
pfeiffer_deutchesrotesreuzECJ102004
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 . .
CitedO’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 . .
CitedGallagher and others v Alpha Catering Services Ltd CA 8-Nov-2004
The Claimants were employed to deliver food to aircraft at airports, loading and unloading food from the aircraft. Between loadings, they were on down time – not physically working, but required to remain in radio contact with their employers, and . .
CitedHughes v The Corps of Commissionaires Management Ltd CA 8-Sep-2011
The employee security guard appealed against a finding that his employer had allowed rest breaks as allowed under the Regulations. He worked a continuous shift during which he was allowed to use a rest area, but he remained on call.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Health Professions, Health and Safety

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.186330

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and Others: HL 20 Jun 2002

The claimants suffered mesothelioma after contact with asbestos while at work. Their employers pointed to several employments which might have given rise to the condition, saying it could not be clear which particular employment gave rise to the condition. The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim.
Held: It is for a claimant to prove that a defendant’s breach of duty caused the loss for which he claims. The situation as it stood created substantial injustice. The Court of Appeal had applied the conventional test of whether it could be shown that the condition would not have been suffered but for the employment. The overall object of tort law was to define cases in which the law might justly hold one party liable to compensate another. This case raised inconsistent policy considerations. In such circumstances justice could only be served by holding both possible sources of the disease responsible.
Lord Bingham said: ‘In a personal injury action based on negligence or breach of statutory duty the claimant seeks to establish a breach by the defendant of a duty owed to the claimant, which has caused him damage. For the purposes of analysis, and for the purpose of pleading, proving and resolving the claim, lawyers find it convenient to break the claim into its constituent elements: the duty, the breach, the damage and the causal connection between the breach and the damage. In the generality of personal injury actions, it is of course true that the claimant is required to discharge the burden of showing that the breach of which he complains caused the damage for which claims and to do so by showing that but for the breach he would not have suffered the damage.’
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead spoke of new departures in the law: ‘To be acceptable the law must be coherent. It must be principled. The basis on which one case, or one type of case, is distinguished from another should be transparent and capable of identification. When a decision departs from principles normally applied, the basis for doing so must be rational and justifiable if the decision is to avoid the reproach that hard cases make bad law.’

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hutton and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Times 21-Jun-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
House of Lords, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMcGhee v National Coal Board HL 1973
The claimant who was used to emptying pipe kilns at a brickworks was sent to empty brick kilns where the working conditions were much hotter and dustier. His employers failed, in breach of their duty, to provide him with washing facilities after his . .
ApprovedWilsher v Essex Area Health Authority HL 24-Jul-1986
A premature baby suffered injury after mistaken treatment by a hospital doctor. He had inserted a monitor into the umbilical vein. The claimant suggested the treatment should have been by a more senior doctor. The hospital appealed a finding that it . .
ApprovedBonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw HL 1-Mar-1956
The injury of which the employee complained came from two sources, a pneumatic hammer, in respect of which the employers were not in breach of the relevant Regulations; and swing grinders, in respect of which they were in breach.
Held: It had . .
Appeal fromFairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and Others, Dyson and Another v Leeds City Counci CA 11-Dec-2001
Where a claimant suffered mesothelioma, contracted whilst working with asbestos, but the disease may have been contracted from inhalation at different times, and with different employers, his claim must fail since it was not possible to identify . .
CitedChapman v Hearse, Baker v Willoughby HL 26-Nov-1969
The plaintiff, a pedestrian had been struck by the defendant’s car while crossing the road. The plaintiff had negligently failed to see the defendant’s car approaching. The defendant had a clear view of the plaintiff prior to the collision, but was . .
CitedEmpress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority HL 22-Jan-1998
A diesel tank was in a yard which drained into a river. It was surrounded by a bund to contain spillage, but that protection was over ridden by an extension pipe from the tank to a drum outside the bund. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that . .
CitedKuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company and Others (Nos 4 and 5) HL 16-May-2002
After the invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi government had dissolved Kuwait airlines, and appropriated several airplanes. Four planes were destroyed by Allied bombing, and 6 more were appropriated again by Iran.
Held: The appeal failed. No claim . .
CitedRahman v Arearose Limited and Another, University College London, NHS Trust CA 15-Jun-2000
The claimant had suffered a vicious physical assault from which the claimant’s employers should have protected him, and an incompetently performed surgical operation. Three psychiatrists agreed that the aetiology of the claimant’s very severe . .
CitedNicholson v Atlas Steel Foundry and Engineering Co Ltd HL 1957
The deceased had worked in the defender’s steel foundry, inhaling there siliceous dust particles. He contracted pneumoconiosis and died. The complaints related to the defender’s failure to provide adequate ventilation to extract the dust. The . .
CitedGardiner v Motherwell Machinery and Scrap Co Ltd HL 1961
The pursuer had worked for the defenders for three months, demolishing buildings, and had contracted dermatitis. He claimed that they had not provided him with adequate washing facilities and that failure caused the dermatitis. On appeal the . .

Cited by:
CitedSix Continents Retail Ltd v Carford Catering Ltd, R Bristoll Ltd CA 5-Nov-2003
The claimant’s premises had been destroyed by fire. They sought damages from the designers for negligence. . .
CitedCoudert Brothers v Normans Bay Limited (Formerly Illingworth, Morris Limited) CA 27-Feb-2004
The respondent had lost its investment in a Russian development, and the appellants challenged a finding that they had been negligent in their advice with regard to the offer documents.
Held: As to the basis of calculation of damages as to a . .
CitedDonachie v The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police CA 7-Apr-2004
The claimant had been asked to work under cover. The surveillance equipment he was asked to use was faulty, requiring him to put himself at risk repeatedly to maintain it resulting in a stress disorder and a stroke.
Held: There was a direct . .
CitedChester v Afshar HL 14-Oct-2004
The claimant suffered back pain for which she required neurosurgery. The operation was associated with a 1-2% risk of the cauda equina syndrome, of which she was not warned. She went ahead with the surgery, and suffered that complication. The . .
CitedGregg v Scott HL 27-Jan-2005
The patient saw his doctor and complained about a lump under his arm. The doctor failed to diagnose cancer. It was nine months before treatment was begun. The claimant sought damages for the reduction in his prospects of disease-free survival for . .
CitedRothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another CA 26-Jan-2006
Each claimant sought damages after being exposed to asbestos dust. The defendants resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as damage to found a claim.
Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . .
CitedAD and OH (A Child) v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council CA 17-Jan-2006
The claimants, mother and son, sought damages from the respondent after they had commenced care proceedings resulting in the son being taken into temporary care. The authority had wrongly suspected abuse. The boy was later found to suffer brittle . .
CitedBarker v Corus (UK) Plc HL 3-May-2006
The claimants sought damages after contracting meselothemia working for the defendants. The defendants argued that the claimants had possibly contracted the disease at any one or more different places. The Fairchild case set up an exception to the . .
CitedBrett v University of Reading CA 14-Feb-2007
The deceased’s personal representative sought damages after the death from mesothelioma after working for the defendant for many years. . .
CitedRolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd v Cox CA 22-Nov-2007
The claimant was the widow of a man who died from mesothelioma after alleged asbestos contamination working for the appellant. The defendant appealed on liability saying that there was insufficient evidence of causation since there was little to . .
CitedAshley and Another v Chief Constable of Sussex Police HL 23-Apr-2008
The claimants sought to bring an action for damages after a family member suspected of dealing drugs, was shot by the police. At the time he was naked. The police officer had been acquitted by a criminal court of murder. The chief constable now . .
CitedEnvironment Agency v Ellis CA 17-Oct-2008
The claimant was injured working for the appellants. The appellants now appealed the finding that they were responsible saying that other factors contributed to the injury, and in particular that he had fallen at home. The claimant said that that . .
CitedSanderson v Hull CA 5-Nov-2008
Insufficient proof of cause of infection
The claimant worked as a turkey plucker. She caught an infection (campylobacter enteritis) at work, and the employer now appealed against a finding of liability. The employer said that the only necessary protection was regular washing of hands. The . .
CitedWootton v J Docter Ltd and Another CA 19-Dec-2008
The claimant sought damages saying that the contraceptive pill dispensed by the defendant was not the one prescribed by her doctor, and that she had become pregnant and suffered the losses claimed namely care, expenses and loss of earnings flowing . .
CitedHalsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust etc CA 11-May-2004
The court considered the effect on costs orders of a refusal to take part in alternate dispute resolution procedures. The defendant Trust had refused to take the dispute to a mediation. In neither case had the court ordered or recommended ADR.
CitedSienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd; Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willmore SC 9-Mar-2011
The Court considered appeals where defendants challenged the factual basis of findings that they had contributed to the causes of the claimant’s Mesothelioma, and in particular to what extent a court can satisfactorily base conclusions of fact on . .
AppliedWillmore v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council QBD 24-Jul-2009
The claimant sought damages for personal injury, saying that she had now contracted mesolthelioma having been exposed to asbestos whilst a pupil at a school run by the defendant’s predecessors.
Held: The authority was liable. . .
CitedSutton v Syston Rugby Football Club Ltd CA 20-Oct-2011
Rugby Field Inspection Adequate not detailed
The claimant was injured training for rugby. His knee was hurt by a sharp object left behind by previous users, but almost hidden. He said that the defendants were negligent in not having inspected the pitch before training. The club appealed saying . .
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
CitedEmployers’ Liability Insurance ‘Trigger’ Litigation: BAI (Run Off) Ltd v Durham and Others SC 28-Mar-2012
The court considered the liability of insurers of companies now wound up for mesothelioma injuries suffered by former employees of those companies, and in particular whether the 1930 Act could be used to impose liability. The insurers now appealed . .
CitedEmployers’ Liability Policy ‘Trigger’ Litigation; Durham v BAI (Run off) Ltd etc QBD 21-Nov-2008
The court heard six claims against companies restored to the register of companies to make claims under their insurance policies for personal injury in the form of death from mesothelioma from asbestos, and particularly whether liability could be . .
CitedEmployers’ Liability Insurance ‘Trigger’ Litigation, Re CA 8-Oct-2010
Companies restored to the register, and the personal representatives of former employees, appealed against rejection of their claims from the insurers of the former companies for damages from mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos during . .
CitedZurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .
CitedCampbell 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 . .
CitedWillers v Joyce and Another (Re: Gubay (Deceased) No 1) SC 20-Jul-2016
Parties had been involved in an action for wrongful trading. This was not persisted with but the claimant sought damages saying that the action was only part of a campaign to do him harm. This appeal raised the question whether the tort of malicious . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.174011

General Cleaning Contractors Ltd v Christmas: HL 1953

It is the duty of the employer to consider the situation, devise a suitable system and instruct his employees what they must do and to provide appropriate equipment. In leaving it to individual workmen to take precautions against an obvious danger, the employers had failed to discharge their duty to provide a reasonably safe system of work.
Lord Oaksey said: ‘In my opinion, it is the duty of an employer to give such general safety instructions as a reasonably careful employer who has considered the problem presented by the work would give to his workmen. It is, I think, well known to employers, and there is evidence in this case that it was well known to the appellants, that their workpeople are very frequently, if not habitually, careless about the risks which their work may involve. It is, in my opinion, for that very reason that the common law demands that employers should take reasonable care to lay down a reasonably safe system of work. Employers are not exempted from this duty by the fact that their men are experienced and might, if they were in the position of an employer, be able to lay down a reasonably safe system of work themselves. Workmen are not in the position of employers. Their duties are not performed in the calm atmosphere of a board room with the advice of experts. They have to make their decisions on narrow window sills and other places of danger and in circumstances in which the dangers are obscured by repetition.
The risk that sashes may unexpectedly close, as the sashes in this case appear to have done, may not happen very often, but when it does, if the workman is steadying himself by a handhold, his fall is almost certain. If the possibility is faced the risk is obvious. If both sashes are closed there is no longer the handhold by which the workman steadies himself. If either sash is kept open the handhold is available and, on the evidence in this case, is, in my opinion, reasonably safe. But the problem is one for the employer to solve and should not, in my opinion, be left to the workman. It can be solved by general orders and the provision of appropriate appliances.’
Lord Reid said: ‘The question then is whether it is the duty of the appellants to instruct their servants what precautions they ought to take and to take reasonable steps to see that those instructions are carried out. On that matter the appellants say that their men are skilled men who are well aware of the dangers involved and as well able as the appellants to devise and take any necessary precautions. That may be so but, in my opinion, it is not a sufficient answer. Where the problem varies from job to job it may be reasonable to leave a great deal to the man in charge, but the danger in this case is one which is constantly found, and it calls for a system to meet it. Where a practice of ignoring an obvious danger has grown up I do not think that it is reasonable to expect an individual workman to take the initiative in devising and using precautions. It is the duty of the employer to consider the situation, to devise a suitable system, to instruct his men what they must do and to supply any implements that may be required.’

Lord Oaksey, Lord Read
[1952] 1 KB 141, [1953] AC 180, [1952] 2 All ER 1110
England and Wales
Cited by:
AppliedBarnes v Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council CA 29-Oct-1997
The claimant was injured at work at a swimming pool. As he and other members of staff tidied away a wet inflatable slide, he slipped and fell, suffering serious injury.
Held: ‘it was necessary for the employers to have laid down a system to . .
CitedFlood v The University Court of the University of Glasgow OHCS 8-Jul-2008
The pursuer, a college lecturer claimed damages for stress related injury suffered as a result of overwork. She had communicated with her managers many times about the overload. Other staff had resigned for similar reasons.
Held: The pursuer . .
CitedAmmah v Kuehne Nagal Logistics Ltd CA 22-Jan-2009
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages. He had been injured removing a pamphlet from a high shelf, having stood on an upturned plastic box. A riser had been provided, and the employer’s manual told employees not to stand on such . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.187943

HM Inspector of Health and Safety v Chevron North Sea Ltd: SC 8 Feb 2018

The inspector had issued a prohibition notice with regard to the access to a heliport on a North Sea oil rig. The court now considered whether, on a challenge to such a notice, the court was restricted to considering only knowledge available at the time of the notice.
Held: The Inspector’s appeal failed. On an appeal under section 24, the tribunal is not limited to considering the matter on the basis of the material which was or should have been available to the inspector. It is entitled to take into account all the available evidence relevant to the state of affairs at the time of the service of the prohibition notice, including information coming to light after it was served.
, Lord Mance, Deputy President, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lady Black
[2018] UKSC 7, UKSC 2016/0166, 2018 GWD 24-307, [2018] 1 WLR 964, [2018] WLR(D) 82, [2018] ICR 490, 2018 SLT 751, [2018] 2 All ER 295, 2019 SCLR 369
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2017 Dec 14 am Video, WLRD
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
Scotland
Citing:
CitedHague (Inspector of Health and Safety) v Rotary Yorkshire Ltd CA 11-Jun-2015
Appeal against successful appeal against health and safety prohibition notice. Rotary Yorkshire were arguing for a broad interpretation of section 24 and the inspector for a more limited interpretation.
Held: Laws LJ (with whom the other . .
Appeal from Inner HouseHM Inspector of Health and Safety v Chevron North Sea Ltd SCS 29-Apr-2016
The Inspector had served an enforcement notice as to the condition of an oil rig. The operators fixed the issues identified and appealed. The court now considered whether on such an appeal it should consider only the situation at the time of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.604214

Knowles v Liverpool City Council: CA 2 Jul 1992

A flagstone handled by an employee was equipment for purposes of the Act.
Gazette 26-Aug-1992, 90 LGR 595, (1992) 136 SJLB 220, [1993] ICR 21, [1993] IRLR 6, (1993) LG Rev 424, Times 02-Jul-1992
Employers Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal FromKnowles v Liverpool City Council HL 15-Oct-1993
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 September 2021; Ref: scu.82824

Davidson v Lothian and Borders Fire Board: IHCS 18 Jul 2003

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.
Lord Marnoch, Lord Hamilton, Lord Macfadyen
[2003] ScotCS 203
Bailii
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 4(1)(b)
Scotland
Citing:
CitedNimmo v Alexander Cowan and Sons Ltd HL 1967
The employer was prosecuted under the 1961 Act.
Held: the burden of proving that it was not reasonably practicable to make and keep a place of work safe rested upon the defendant employer. If an exception was to be established, it was for the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.184666

Regina v Balfour Beatty Rail Infrastructure Services Ltd: CACD 5 Jul 2006

The defendant appealed against a fine of 10 million pounds for its failings in maintaining track which led to the train crash at Hatfield.
Held: The company’s contract was substantial. Positive steps were to be taken by all concerned in a company to ensure compliance with Health and Safety duties. Management would be encouraged to satisfy its duties if the fine was of sufficient size to affect shareholders. Where an individual employee was at fault, and the danger did not arise from a fault in the management system, a deterrent sentence was not appropriate, but here there had been a serious systemic failure in management. The fine was out of proportion to that imposed on the co-defendant, Railtrack plc, to reduce it to a proportionate level would remove the deterrent effect, and the fine was reduced therefore to 7.5 million pounds.
Lord Phillips CJ, Nelson, Silber JJ
[2006] EWCA Crim 1586, Times 18-Jul-2006, [2007] Bus LR 77, [2007] ICR 354
Bailii
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.243065

Brintons Ltd v Turvey: HL 14 Apr 1905

Held (diss Lord Robertson) that a workman, who in the course of his employment as a woolsorter contracted anthrax from infected wool, had sustained ‘personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment,’ within the meaning of section 1 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897.
Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lords Macnaghten, Robertson, and Lindley
[1905] UKHL 862, 42 SLR 862
Bailii
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897 1
England and Wales

Updated: 06 August 2021; Ref: scu.621174

Railtrack Plc v Smallwood: QBD 16 Feb 2001

It was not incorrect for an inspector to proceed to issue a prohibition notice to the rail operator, with regard to the use of a signal set, which had been deemed unsafe, even where the operator had given formal undertakings with regard to its’ use. The overwhelming need was to re-assure the public as to their safety, and the additional imposition of the notice operated as a belt and braces method of ensuring such safety. The section should be read purposively. The inspector would have been free to issue the notice before the accident. The accident had merely confirmed the need for a notice. ‘Activities’ might include suspended activities.
Sullivan J said: ‘In the light of those factors, and of the authorities cited in De Smith Woolf and Jowell’s Judicial Review of Administrative Law (1999), pp 251-252, paragraph 6-010, I expressed the provisional view during the course of argument that a Tribunal hearing an appeal under section 24 of the 1974 Act was not limited to reviewing the genuineness and/or the reasonableness of the Inspector’s opinions. It was required to form its own view, paying due regard to the Inspector’s expertise, see in particular Sagnata Investments Ltd v Norwich Corporation [1971} 2QB 614.’
Sullivan J
Times 16-Feb-2001, Gazette 01-Mar-2001, [2001] ICR 714
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 22
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedChilcott v Thermal Transfer Ltd Admn 17-Jul-2009
The company had successfully appealed against a prohibition notice relating to its arrangements for working at height. By the time of the prohibition notice, it had implemented a plan satisfactory to the inspector.
Held: The tribunal had not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 July 2021; Ref: scu.85650

Chalk v Devizes Reclamation Company Limited: CA 24 Feb 1999

Where a task required common-sense, and no obvious instructions were capable of avoiding a danger, an employer was not required to produce instruction and training. The judge erred in finding liability without finding what would have helped.
Sir Stephen Brown Lord Justice Swinton Thomas
Times 02-Apr-1999, Gazette 24-Mar-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 849
England and Wales

Updated: 19 May 2021; Ref: scu.145764

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 – European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) – Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – 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 of the list on the ECHA website – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Dies a quo – Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court – Claim barred by lapse of time
Cruz Villalon AG
C-625/11, [2013] EUECJ C-625/11
Bailii
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 45
European
Cited by:
OpinionPolyelectrolyte Producers Group Geie v European Chemicals Agency ECJ 26-Sep-2013
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 May 2021; Ref: scu.471947

Armstrong and others v British Coal Corporation: CA 28 Nov 1996

Liability for vibration white finger damage was foreseeable from 1973, but liability began in 1975 when precautions became available against the consequences and so the employer was able to protect his employees.
Times 06-Dec-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1049
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBaker 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.140916

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 contained two cooling towers which, when inspected, were found to contain the bacteria which causes legionnaire’s disease. No-one had actually succumbed to that disease, but there was a risk to health and safety and the prosecution’s case was that prima facie there was a breach of section 3(1) because the appellants had failed to ensure that persons not in their employment were not exposed to that risk. The appellants contended that no actual risk to the public had been established.
Held: Section 3(3) of the 1974 Act contains an absolute prohibition subject only to the defence in the section of reasonable practicality. The court referred to the concept of risk as containing the idea of ‘a possibility of danger’.
Steyn LJ said that the ordinary meaning of the word ‘risks’ supported the prosecution’s interpretation that the section was concerned with the possibility of danger: ‘The adoption of the restrictive interpretation argued for by the defence would make enforcement of section 3(1), and to some extent also of sections 20, 21 and 22, more difficult and would in our judgment result in a substantial emasculation of a central part of the Act of 1974. The interpretation which renders those statutory provisions effective in their role of protecting public health and safety is to be preferred.’
Steyn LJ
Gazette 26-May-1993, [1993] 1 WLR 1171
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 33
England and Wales
Cited by:
AppliedRegina 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 . .
CitedHampstead 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 . .
CitedChargot Limited (T/A Contract Services) and Others, Regina v HL 10-Dec-2008
The victim died on a farm when his dumper truck overturned burying him in its load.
Held: The prosecutor needed to establish a prima facie case that the results required by the Act had not been achieved. He need only establish that a risk of . .
CitedRegina v Porter CACD 19-May-2008
Everyday risks may be outwith Health and Safety
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 1974 Act. He was headmaster at a private school. A child of three jumped from steps in the playground injured his head and was taken to hospital where he contracted MRSA and died.
Held: . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.86155

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 contractors were used.
Stuart-Smith LJ said: ‘If there is a risk of injury to the health and safety of the persons not employed by the employer, whether to the contractor’s men or members of the public, and, a fortiori, if there is actual injury as a result of the conduct of that operation there is prima facie liability, subject to the defence of reasonable practicability.’
Stuart-Smith LJ
Times 03-Aug-1994, Gazette 07-Oct-1994, Ind Summary 29-Aug-1994, [1994] 4 All ER 1051
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2 3(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
AppliedRegina 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 . .
CitedHampstead 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.86063

FUSS (Social Policy): ECJ 14 Oct 2010

ECJ Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 2003/88/EC – Organisation of working time – Fire fighters employed in the public sector – Operational service – Article 6(b) and Article 22(1)(b) – Maximum weekly working time – Refusal to work longer than that time – Compulsory transfer to another service – Direct effect – Consequence for national courts.
C-243/09, [2010] EUECJ C-243/09
Bailii
European

Updated: 28 February 2021; Ref: scu.425288

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 remuneration and / or benefit ‘Worker transferred to another position during pregnancy’ Assignment due to risk to her health and that of her child ‘Remuneration lower than average remuneration received before temporary assignment to another post’ Former Compensation Monthly salary and bonuses
C-471/08, [2009] EUECJ C-471/08 – O
Bailii
Directive 92/85/EEC
European
Cited by:
OpinionParviainen v Finnair Oyj ECJ 1-Jul-2010
ECJ 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 . .
OpinionParviainen (Social Policy) ECJ 1-Jul-2010
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 February 2021; Ref: scu.384495

Kinnear and Others v Falconfilms Nv and Others: QBD 27 Jan 1994

The deceased had died in an accident whilst filming in Spain for the defendants. The plaintiff personal representatives sought damages here, while the defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction under the 1968 Convention, and said that the death actually occurred as a consequence of the negligence of his medical treatment in Spain.
Phillips J
[1994] EWHC QB 1, [1996] 1 WLR 920, [1994] ILPr 731, [1994] 3 All ER 42
Bailii
Brussels Convention on Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments 1968, Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 1, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
Citing:
CitedHaqen v Zeehaqhe ECJ 1990
ECJ ‘Article 6(2) makes provision for a special jurisdiction, which the Plaintiff may choose because of the existence, in clearly defined situations, of a particularly close connecting factor between a dispute . .
CitedSomafer Sa v Saar-Ferngas Ag ECJ 22-Nov-1978
ECJ 1. The Convention of 27 September 1968 must be interpreted having regard both to its principles and objectives and to its relationship with the treaty. The question whether the words and concepts used in the . .
CitedKalfelis v Bankhaus Schroder, Munchmeyer, Hengst and Co and others ECJ 27-Sep-1988
kalfelisECJ1988
ECJ For Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters to apply, a connection must exist between the various actions brought . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 February 2021; Ref: scu.383805

Mason and Another v Satelcom Ltd and East Potential Ltd: CA 14 May 2008

The claimant was replacing a computer memory card. He fell from a ladder suffering injury. He was employed by the defendant contracting for another defendant, and used a ladder on loan from another neighbour.
Held: The contribution sought from the owner of the ladder failed. It had not been proved that East owned the ladder, and therefore their duty went no further in this case than to make sure whilst it was under their control it did not get in anyone’s way.
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice May and Lord Justice Longmore
[2008] EWCA Civ 494, Times 04-Jun-2008, [2008] ICR 971
Bailii
Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (1992 No 2932)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromMason v Satelcom Ltd and others QBD 24-Jul-2007
The claimant IT engineer was injured replacing a computer card. He was employed by other defendants contracting for the now only continuing defendant. . .

Cited by:
CitedSmith v Northamptonshire County Council HL 20-May-2009
The claimant, a health care worker was visiting the home of a client when she fell from a defective wheelchair ramp and suffered injury. She sought damages from her employer.
Held: Her appeal failed (Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting). The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 February 2021; Ref: scu.267654

Baker v TE Hopkins and Son Ltd: CA 24 Jul 1959

The defendant had employed to clean a well. In error a petrol pump was sued, which discharged carbon monoxide into the well. On two workers getting into difficulties, a doctor sought to rescue them. All three died in the well. The employer denied negligence as regards the death of the Doctor.
Held: ‘ Bearing in mind that danger invites rescue, the court should not be astute to accept criticism of the rescuer’s conduct from the wrongdoer who created the danger. Moreover, I think it should be remembered that it is fatally easy to be wise after the event. It is not enough that, when all the evidence has been sifted and all the facts ascertained in the calm and deliberate atmosphere of a court of law, the rescuer’s conduct can be shown ex post facto to have been misguided or foolhardy. He is entitled to be judged in the light of the situation as it appeared to him at the time, i.e., in a context of immediate and pressing emergency. Here Dr. Baker was faced with a situation in which two men were in danger of speedy death at the bottom of the well, unless something were done very quickly. He was a doctor, and he had been specially summoned to help. Any man of courage in his position would have felt impelled to act, even at the risk of his own safety. Time was pressing; immediate action was necessary if the men in danger were to be helped; there was virtually no opportunity for reflection, or for estimating the risks involved in an act of rescue. If Dr. Baker in such circumstances had instinctively gone straight down the well, without stopping to take any precautions at all, it would, I think, have been difficult enough to criticise him. But in point of fact he did take the very wise precaution of securing himself with a rope, whereby those on the surface could pull him up if he himself were overcome. The immediate cause of his death was the sheer mischance of the rope becoming caught on some obstruction, so as to make it impossible for those on the surface to pull him to safety. I do not think that, having regard to the emergency in which he was acting, he is to be blamed for not foreseeing and guarding against the possibility of such a mischance. On the contrary, I entirely agree with the view expressed by the judge that the defendants, whose negligence brought about the danger, must accept the risk of mischances of this kind. In all the circumstances, I find it impossible to accept the contention that Dr. Baker was guilty of any negligence either causing or contributing to his death.’
Morris, Ormerod, Willmer LJJ
[1959] EWCA Civ 4, [1959] 1 WLR 966, [1959] 3 All ER 225
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 05 February 2021; Ref: scu.262820

Ellis v Bristol City Council: CA 5 Jul 2007

The claimant appealed dismissal of her claim for personal injuries. She worked at a nursing home, and had slipped on urine on the floor. Slip mats had been placed on the floor, but had been insufficient. There had been previous accidents, and a risk assessment had identified the dangers, and steps taken. The claim was based on the construction of the floor.
Held: The judge had wrongly not considered the associated Code of Practice as an aid to construction of the Regulations. The appeal was allowed. The judge had been wrong to have excluded all but permanent features of the floor: ‘Regulation 12(1) and (2) do require the court to consider suitability in the context of the circumstances of use, including circumstances which are temporary in nature, providing they arise with a sufficient degree of frequency and regularity. The paragraphs read together require that the surface of a floor or traffic route must not be slippery.’
Smith LJ, Lloyd LJ, Wilson LJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 685, Times 21-Aug-2007, [2007] ICR 1614
Bailii
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 12, Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRogers v George Blair 1971
The court considered the suitability of some goggles as a means of protecting a workman’s eyes.
Held: To be suitable, the protection need not make it impossible for an accident to occur but it must make it highly unlikely. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 February 2021; Ref: scu.254461

PRP Architects v Reid: CA 28 Jul 2006

A lift was held to be work equipment within the Regulations.
[2006] EWCA Civ 1119, [2007] ICR 78
Bailii
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 5
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedSpencer-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 . .
CitedSmith v Northamptonshire County Council HL 20-May-2009
The claimant, a health care worker was visiting the home of a client when she fell from a defective wheelchair ramp and suffered injury. She sought damages from her employer.
Held: Her appeal failed (Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting). The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 January 2021; Ref: scu.244102

Cameron and others v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd: QBD 18 May 2006

The claimant sought damages from the defendant after the death of her father in the Potters Bar rail crash. The defendant applied for summary judgment saying that English law did not recognise a claim by a family member of a deceased save through the claim of the estate itself. The claimant said that this would deny her human rights, and sought a declaration of incompatibility with regard to s1A of the 1976 Act.
Held: ‘It is within the reasonable margin of appreciation of the State to limit those who are entitled to claim compensation to those who are financially dependent on the deceased. Who otherwise should say where the line should be drawn between those who may claim from those who may not? ‘ The claimants had also lost any possibility of a claim through limitation.
[2006] EWHC 1133 (QB), Times 14-Jun-2006
Bailii
Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 2000, Human Rights Act 1998, Fatal Accidents Act 1976 1A, Railways Act 1993
Citing:
CitedTakoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
CitedMiddleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
CitedFoster and others v British Gas plc ECJ 12-Jul-1990
The defendants (BGC) were nationalised suppliers of gas. BGC was by statute a body with a legal persona operating under the supervision of the authorities. Its members were appointed by the Secretary of State, who also determined their remuneration. . .
CitedParochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley, Warwickshire v Wallbank and another HL 26-Jun-2003
The owners of glebe land were called upon as lay rectors to contribute to the cost of repairs to the local church. They argued that the claim was unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act as an act by a public authority incompatible with a Convention . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 January 2021; Ref: scu.242210

Denton Hall Legal Services and others v Fifield: CA 8 Mar 2006

The court gave guidance on the procedures to be adopted to avoid difficulties arising from factual differences between medical experts.
Buxton LJ discussed the status of quotations recorded by the doctor examining a claimant, saying: ‘What the doctor writes down as having been told him by the patient, as opposed to the opinion that he expresses on the basis of those statements, is not at that stage evidence of the making of the statement that he records.’
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, Lord Justice Buxton, Lord Justice Wall
Times 22-Mar-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 169
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCharnock and Others v Rowan and Others CA 20-Jan-2012
14 passengers in a bus hit from behind at a slow speed had all claimed whiplash injury. The expert had said that the accepted speed required to produce such an injury was a change of 3mph, which would require an impact at 30mph, whereas the evidence . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 January 2021; Ref: scu.238897

Grant v National Coal Board: HL 1956

The House considered the effect of a statutory provision that: ‘the roof and sides of every travelling road, outlet and working place shall be made secure’
Held: Lord Reid said: ‘I cannot see why it should matter just how the accident was caused provided that it was in fact caused by a breach of the section. I see no ground for imputing to Parliament an intention to make the mineowner liable for some of the consequences of breach but to relieve him of liability for others.’ and ‘The question whether an employer is liable to an employee for injuries caused to him by breach of a statutory duty depends on whether there can be implied from the terms of the statute imposing the duty an enactment that the employer shall be so liable. In general that is implied from the enactment of a duty in the interest of the safety of employees . .’
Lord Reid
[1956] AC 649
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMcDonald 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 January 2021; Ref: scu.538254

Robb v Salamis (M and I) Limited: OHCS 16 Mar 2005

Lady Cosgrove And Lord Penrose And Lord Reed
[2005] ScotCS CSIH – 28, 2005 SLT 523
Bailii
Scotland
Cited by:
See AlsoSalamis (Marine and Industrial) Limited v Douglas Forbes OHCS 14-Jul-2005
. .
Appeal fromRobb 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 January 2021; Ref: scu.228091

Regina v Jarvis Facilities Ltd: CACD 26 May 2005

The defendant company had been fined when a train was derauled as a result of the company’s failure properly to maintain rail track. It appealed the fine of andpound;400,000.
Held: Fines should properly be increased where the failure arose in the course of provision of a public service. However here had been no significant injury or damage. Even allowing for the need for deterrence the fine was reduced to andpound;275,000.
Waller, LJ, hedley, Royce JJ
Times 08-Jun-2005, [2005] EWCA Crim 1409
Bailii
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 33
England and Wales

Updated: 23 January 2021; Ref: scu.226038

Robinson and Another v Northumbria Police Authority and Another: CA 12 Oct 2001

Two police officers sought damages after their patrol car was trapped and attacked by youths. Senior officers were aware of such attacks, and considered arrangements for different windscreens.
Held: The risk was forseeable, and given the additional known risks faced by police officers, it was reasonable for the authority to have acted.
[2001] EWCA Civ 1556
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 21 January 2021; Ref: scu.218461

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 individual or a corporation, who is in a position to exercise complete control over the matters to which the duties extend. An employer can control the conditions of work of his employees and the manner in which he conducts his undertaking.’
Lord Goff said ‘for the purpose of considering whether the defendant has discharged the onus which rests upon him to establish that it was not reasonably practicable for him, in the circumstances, to eliminate the relevant risk, there has to be taken into account (inter alia) the likelihood of that risk eventuating. The degree of likelihood is an important element in the equation. It follows that the effect is to bring into play forseeability in the sense of likelihood of the incidence of the relevant risk, and that the likelihood of such risk eventuating has to be weighed against the means, including cost, necessary to eliminate it.’
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
[1990] 1 AC 619
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedEdwards v National Coal Board CA 1949
A regulation encompassed a requirement to take specified action, so far as it is reasonably practicable, in order to prevent danger. Asquith LJ discussed the term: ”Reasonably practicable’ . . seems to me to imply that a computation must be made by . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina 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. . .
CitedHampstead 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 . .
CitedMann v Northern Electric Distribution Ltd CA 26-Feb-2010
Climb over high fence was unforeseeable
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages after suffering very severe injury when climbing onto an electricity substation. He said that the defendant had not satisfied its statutory obligation to fence off the substation. The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 January 2021; Ref: scu.184757

Duthie v Bath and North East Somerset Council: CA 9 Jun 2004

[2004] EWCA Civ 1194
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromW A Duthie v Bath and North East Somerset Council EAT 29-Apr-2003
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 . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromW A Duthie v Bath and North East Somerset Council EAT 29-Apr-2003
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 January 2021; Ref: scu.215975

Bonser v UK Coal Mining Ltd: CA 9 Jun 2003

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.
Lord Phillips MR
Times 30-Jun-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 1296, [2004] IRLR 164
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar CA 5-Feb-2002
Defendant employers appealed findings of liability for personal injuries consisting of an employee’s psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
Held: Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are . .

Cited by:
CitedHartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust etc CA 19-Jan-2005
The court considered the liability of employers for stress injury to several employees.
Held: Though the principles of awarding damages for stress related psychiatric injury are the same as those for physical injury, the issues have still . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 January 2021; Ref: scu.186535

Holtby v Brigham and Cowan (Hull) Ltd: CA 6 Apr 2000

A claimant who sought damages for injuries suffered by the ingestion of asbestos whilst working for one employer, but had also worked for other periods for other employers where similar activities had been involved, had the onus in the claim to prove causation. It might be impossible to apportion the damage exactly, but he must demonstrate a substantial contribution from the defendant. Having been found responsible in this way, the employer would be responsible only to the extent of his contribution to the asbestosis. Each tortfeasor should be responsible only for the proportion which its exposure contributed to the damage.
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Clarke
Times 12-Apr-2000, Gazette 11-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 111, [2000] 3 All ER 421
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedThompson v Smiths Shiprepairers (North Shields) Ltd QBD 1984
The test to be applied in determining the time at which an employer’s failure to provide protection constituted actionable negligence was what would have been done at any particular time by a reasonable and prudent employer who was properly but not . .

Cited by:
CitedEnvironment Agency v Ellis CA 17-Oct-2008
ea_ellis
The claimant was injured working for the appellants. The appellants now appealed the finding that they were responsible saying that other factors contributed to the injury, and in particular that he had fallen at home. The claimant said that that . .
CitedHorsley v Cascade Insulation Services Ltd and Others QBD 18-Nov-2009
The claimant sought damages after contracting asbestosis through employment exposure with the defendants. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 January 2021; Ref: scu.185908

Gallagher v Kleinwort Benson (Trustees) Limited and others: SCS 12 Mar 2003

Lord Reed
[2003] ScotCS 66, 2003 SCLR 384
Bailii
Framework Directive (89/31)
Scotland
Cited by:
CitedMunro v Aberdeen City Council SCS 17-Sep-2009
Safety Duty on Employer was not Absolute
The pursuer was injured slipping on ice in her defender employer’s car park. Liability depended on the interpretation of regulation 5, the claimant saying that it imposed an absolute requirement to maintain the workplace in efficient working order . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.183992

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 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.
Aldous, Mummery, Rix LJJ
[2003] EWCA Civ 636, Times 15-May-2003
Bailii
Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) Regulations 1980 (1980 No 538) 43(10)
England and Wales
Citing:
DistinguishedTodd and Others v Adams and Another CA 18-Apr-2002
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 . .
AppliedGroves 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 . .
CitedButler (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 . .
CitedX (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995
Liability in Damages on Statute Breach to be Clear
Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give rise . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.181942

Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany C-5/00: ECJ 7 Feb 2002

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.
[2002] EUECJ C-5/00
Bailii
Council Directive 89/391/EEC
European

Updated: 08 January 2021; Ref: scu.167656

Kerr v North Ayrshire Council: SCS 16 Jan 2002

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.
Lady Smith
[2002] ScotCS 13
Bailii
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2793)
Scotland

Updated: 08 January 2021; Ref: scu.167453

Pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries Plc: HL 30 Jun 1998

In the absence of conclusive evidence establishing a cause of a condition, the judge was free to find that causation was not established and that the claim was lost. There was no necessary obligation on an employer to have procedures which might create claims.
Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead
Times 30-Jun-1998, [1998] UKHL 25, [1998] 3 All ER 462, [1998] 1 WLR 1189
Bailii
Citing:
Appeal fromAnne Margaret Pickford v ICI CA 2-Aug-1996
A failure to provide guidance to employee resulting in repetitive strain injury. A prescribed disease PDA4 of RSI type was found. The issue was causation not forseeability. . .
Gazette 02-Aug-96, Gazette 23-Oct-96
See AlsoICI Plc v Colmer (Inspector of Taxes) HL 15-Mar-1996
A ‘Holding company’ under the Act meant a company resident in the UK; A reference was made of the issues to the European Court. . .
Times 15-Mar-96

Cited by:
Appealed toAnne Margaret Pickford v ICI CA 2-Aug-1996
A failure to provide guidance to employee resulting in repetitive strain injury. A prescribed disease PDA4 of RSI type was found. The issue was causation not forseeability. . .
Gazette 02-Aug-96, Gazette 23-Oct-96

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 December 2020; Ref: scu.84731

Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Malrod Insulations Ltd: QBD 6 Jan 1993

The company had contracted to remove asbestos. Before work was to start, the inspector found defective equipment. The prosecutor appealed the acquittal on appeal to the Crown Court.
Held: An employer’s duty of care extends to all employees, and not just those working on a particular plant and even when the plant was not in use. The duty under s2 applied to all employees ‘at work’ and was not restricted to those intended to use the plant in question. The duty to provide safe equipment applied even though it had not been used.
Times 04-Aug-1994, Gazette 06-Jan-1993, [1993] ICR 358, (1993) 137 SJLB 13, [1993] IRLR 274, [1993] COD 391
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2(1) 2(a)

Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.78474

Anne Margaret Pickford v ICI: CA 2 Aug 1996

A failure to provide guidance to employee resulting in repetitive strain injury. A prescribed disease PDA4 of RSI type was found. The issue was causation not forseeability.
Gazette 02-Aug-1996, Gazette 23-Oct-1996
Citing:
Appealed toPickford v Imperial Chemical Industries Plc HL 30-Jun-1998
In the absence of conclusive evidence establishing a cause of a condition, the judge was free to find that causation was not established and that the claim was lost. There was no necessary obligation on an employer to have procedures which might . .
Times 30-Jun-98, [1998] UKHL 25, [1998] 3 All ER 462, [1998] 1 WLR 1189

Cited by:
Appeal fromPickford v Imperial Chemical Industries Plc HL 30-Jun-1998
In the absence of conclusive evidence establishing a cause of a condition, the judge was free to find that causation was not established and that the claim was lost. There was no necessary obligation on an employer to have procedures which might . .
Times 30-Jun-98, [1998] UKHL 25, [1998] 3 All ER 462, [1998] 1 WLR 1189

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.77802

Edwards v National Coal Board: CA 1949

A regulation encompassed a requirement to take specified action, so far as it is reasonably practicable, in order to prevent danger. Asquith LJ discussed the term: ”Reasonably practicable’ . . seems to me to imply that a computation must be made by the owner, in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other; and that if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them – the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice – the defendants discharge the onus on them.’
Asquith LJ
[1949] 1 KB 704
Cited by:
CitedAustin 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 . .
[1990] 1 AC 619
CitedMann v Northern Electric Distribution Ltd CA 26-Feb-2010
Climb over high fence was unforeseeable
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages after suffering very severe injury when climbing onto an electricity substation. He said that the defendant had not satisfied its statutory obligation to fence off the substation. The . .
[2010] EWCA Civ 141
CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group and Others CA 5-Jun-2009
The court considered a request that one of the three judges (Sedley LJ) recuse himself on the grounds of apparent bias. It was a case claiming damages for personal injury in the form of hearing losses incurred at work. Sedley LJ was Hon President of . .
[2009] EWCA Civ 566, Times 18-Jun-09, [2009] CP Rep 38

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.401956

Mitchell v North British Rubber Co Ltd: 1945

The court considered the meaning of the term ‘dangerous’ in the Act. Lord Justice Clerk Cooper: ‘The question is not whether the occupiers of the factory knew that it was dangerous; nor whether a factory inspector had so reported; nor whether previous accidents had occurred; nor whether the victims of these accidents had, or had not, been contributorily negligent. The test is objective and impersonal. Is the part such in its character, and so circumstanced in its position, exposure, method of operation and the like, that in the ordinary course of human affairs danger may reasonably be anticipated from its use unfenced, not only to the prudent, alert and skilled operative intent on his task, but also to the careless or inattentive worker whose inadvertent or indolent conduct may expose him to risk of injury or death from the unguarded part?’
Lord Justice Clerk Cooper
1945 JC 69
Factories Act 1937 14(1)
Cited by:
CitedRobb 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 . .
[2006] UKHL 56, Times 22-Dec-06, 2007 SC (HL) 71, [2007] 2 All ER 97, [2007] ICR 175

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.247756

Davies v Health and Safety Executive: CA 18 Dec 2002

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.
Tuckey LJ, Douglas Brown, Gordon JJ
Times 27-Dec-2002
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 33(1)(a) 40
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Times 02-Nov-99, Gazette 10-Nov-99, [1999] UKHL 43, [2000] 2 AC 326, [1999] 3 WLR 972, [2000] Crim LR 486, [1999] 4 All ER 801, [2000] 1 Cr App Rep 275, (1999) 11 Admin LR 1026, (2000) 2 LGLR 697, [2000] HRLR 93, [2000] UKHRR 176

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.178604

Hewett v Alf Brown’s Transport Ltd and Others: CA 15 Apr 1992

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

Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.81350

Connor v Secretary of State for Scotland: OHCS 22 Mar 2000

A prison governor sent out a warder with two violent prisoners where it was policy not to bring such prisoners together. The warder suffered injury as a result. There could be no breach of statutory duty where the governor exercised a discretion given to him as to how a statutory function was to be fulfilled. Nevertheless he might be liable in negligence.
Times 22-Mar-2000

Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.79455

Sheppey v Matthew T Shaw and Co Ltd: 1952

[1952] 1 TLR 1272
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBaker 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 . .
[2011] UKSC 17, UKSC 2009/0107, [2011] ICR 523, [2011] 1 WLR 1003

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.440382

Ebbs v James Whitson and Co Ltd: CA 1952

Hodson LJ
[1952] 2 QB 877
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBaker 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 . .
[2011] UKSC 17, UKSC 2009/0107, [2011] ICR 523, [2011] 1 WLR 1003

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 December 2020; Ref: scu.440379

Seaboard Offshore Ltd v Secretary of State Transport: QBD 24 Mar 1993

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.
References: Gazette 24-Mar-1993
Statutes: Merchant Shipping Act 1988 31

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.89075

RMC Roadstone Products Ltd v Jester: QBD 8 Feb 1994

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.’
References: Times 08-Feb-1994, [1994] 4 All ER 1037
Judges: Smith J
Statutes: Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1)
This case is cited by:

  • 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. . .
    (Times 15-Nov-96, , , [1996] UKHL 1, [1996] ICR 972, [1996] 4 All ER 846, [1996] 1 WLR 1543, [1997] Crim LR 355, [1997] IRLR 123)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.88794

Regina v Croydon Justices, ex parte W H Smith Ltd: QBD 22 Nov 2000

The power to institute proceedings for a breach of the Act lay in the inspector, and he could not delegate it. The Act was explicit in its requirements as to who could issue proceedings. The informations were not laid when the inspector requested a local authority solicitor to issue them, and there was nothing to justify any inference of a power to delegate.
References: Gazette 30-Nov-2000, Times 22-Nov-2000
Statutes: Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 38

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.88431

Regina v Paul Wurth Sa: CACD 29 Mar 2000

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.
References: Times 29-Mar-2000
Statutes: Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 (1994 No 3140)

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.85442

Mains v Uniroyal Englebert Tyres Ltd: IHCS 29 Sep 1995

An employer’s duties to provide a safe workplace exists despite the lack of forseeability of any accident of the type which occurred.
References: Times 29-Sep-1995, [1995] SC 518
Statutes: Factories Act 1961 29(1)
This case is cited by:

  • 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 . .
    (, [2011] UKSC 17, , , UKSC 2009/0107, , [2011] ICR 523, [2011] 1 WLR 1003)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.83328

Janicki v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 2 Feb 2001

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.
References: Times 02-Feb-2001
Statutes: Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1985 No 967, Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.82491

Reed v Great Western Railway Co: HL 29 Oct 1908

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.
References: [1908] UKHL 700, 46 SLR 700
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Ashbourne, Macnaghten, and James of Hereford
Statutes: Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.621523

George v Glasgow Coal Co, Ltd: HL 9 Nov 1908

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.
References: [1908] UKHL 28, 46 SLR 28
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Robertson and Lord Collins
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.621525

Ismay, Imrie, and Co v Williamson: HL 31 Jul 1908

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.
References: [1908] UKHL 699, 46 SLR 699
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Ashbourne and Macnaghten
Statutes: Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.621517

Houlder Line Ltd v Griffin: HL 14 Apr 1905

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.
References: [1905] UKHL 865, 42 SLR 865
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lords Macnaghten, James of Hereford, and Lindley
Statutes: Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897 1 7
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.621177

John Watson Ltd v Brown: HL 28 Apr 1914

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.
References: [1914] UKHL 492, 51 SLR 492
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Dunedin, Lord Kinnear, Lord Atkinson, Lord Shaw, and Lord Parmoor
Statutes: Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.620713

Board of Management of Trim Joint District School v Kelly: HL 6 Apr 1914

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.
References: [1914] UKHL 612, 52 SLR 612
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Chancellor (Viscount Haldane), Earl Loreburn, Lords Dunedin, Atkinson, Shaw, Parker, and Reading
Statutes: Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.620711

Lloyd v Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Co, Ltd: HL 6 Apr 1914

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.
References: [1914] UKHL 631, 52 SLR 631
Links: Bailii
Judges: Earl Loreburn, Lords Atkinson, Shaw, and Moulton
Statutes: Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.620714

Blair and Co Ltd v Chilton: HL 11 May 1915

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.
References: [1915] UKHL 503, 53 SLR 503
Links: Bailii
Judges: Earl Loreburn, Lords Parker, Sumner, and Parmoor
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.620683

Woods v Thomas Wilson Sons and Co Ltd: HL 1 Mar 1915

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.
References: [1915] UKHL 516, 53 SLR 516
Links: Bailii
Judges: Earl Loreburn, Lords Atkinson, Parker, Sumner, and Parmoor
Statutes: Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.620680

Smith v Davis and Sons Ltd: HL 29 Mar 1915

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.
References: [1915] UKHL 524, 53 SLR 524
Links: Bailii
Judges: Earl Loreburn, Lords Atkinson and Parker
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.620679

Parker v Owners of Ship ‘Black Rock’: HL 11 May 1915

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.’
References: [1915] UKHL 500, 53 SLR 500
Links: Bailii
Judges: Earl Loreburn, Lords Parker, Sumner, Parmoor, and Wrenbury
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.620684

Britannic Merthyr Coal Co v David: HL 13 Dec 1909

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.
References: [1909] UKHL 609
Links: Bailii
Judges: The Earl of Halsbury, Lords Ashbourne, Atkinson, Gorell, and Shaw
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.620593

Jackson v General Steam Fishing Co, Ltd: HL 29 Jul 1909

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.
References: [1909] UKHL 901
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Ashbourne, Lord James of Hereford, Lord Atkinson, Lord Gorell, and Lord Shaw of Dunfermline
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.620587

Barnabas v Bersham Colliery Co: HL 9 Nov 1910

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
References: [1910] UKHL 727, 48 SLR 727
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.619801

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 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.’
References: [1912] AC 149, [1911] UKHL 228, 1912 SC (HL) 33, 49 SLR 228, [1912] AC 149
Links: Bailii
Judges: The Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Ashbourne, Lord Kinnear, and Lord Shaw
Statutes: Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887 49
Jurisdiction: Scotland
This case cites:

  • 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 . .
    ((1898) 79 LT 284, (1898) 67 LJQB 862, [1898] 2 QB 402)
  • At SCS – Black v The Fife Coal Co, Ltd SCS 24-Nov-1908
    . .
    (, [1908] SLR 191)

This case is cited by:

  • 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 . .
    (, [2003] EWCA Civ 636, Times 15-May-03)
  • 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 . .
    (, [2016] UKSC 38, , [2016] Lloyd’s Rep IR 591, [2016] ICR 862, [2016] 3 WLR 294, [2016] PIQR P15, 2016 SLT 887, [2016] WLR(D) 376, 2016 GWD 21-380, [2016] AC 1513, 2016 SCLR 434, [2016] 2 BCLC 287, , UKSC 2015/0061, , )
  • 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 . .
    ([1949] AC 398)
  • 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 Rhodesia without a licence. The plaintiff ceased supply as required, . .
    ([1982] AC 173, [1981] 3 WLR 33, [1981] 2 All R 456)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.619220

Taylor v London and North-Western Railway Co: HL 19 Feb 1912

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.
References: [1912] UKHL 1020, 49 SLR 1020
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Chancellor (Earl Loreburn), Lords Atkinson, Shaw, and Mersey
Statutes: Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.619232

Grizzly Tools v Commission: ECFI 3 May 2018

(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
References: ECLI: EU: T: 2018: 246, [2018] EUECJ T-168/16
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.609510

Castro v Mutua Umivale and Others: ECJ 26 Apr 2018

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
References: ECLI:EU:C:2018:289, [2018] EUECJ C-41/17 – O
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.609310

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 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.’
References: Times 31-Dec-1994, [1995] IRLR 310, [1995] ICR 586, [1995] 1 WLR 1356
Statutes: Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 40
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • 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 . .
    ([1971] CLY 10538, [1972] AC 153, [1971] 2 WLR 1166, [1971] 2 All ER 127, , [1971] UKHL 1)
  • 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 . .
    (Gazette 26-May-93, [1993] 1 WLR 1171)
  • 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 . .
    (Times 03-Aug-94, Gazette 07-Oct-94, Ind Summary 29-Aug-94, [1994] 4 All ER 1051)

This case is cited by:

  • 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 . .
    (, [2005] EWHC 713 (Admin), Times 19-May-05)
  • Cited – Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd CA 10-Feb-2009
    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 . .
    (, [2009] EWCA Civ 46, [2009] 3 All ER 304, [2010] 1 WLR 785)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.86213

Fertisac, Sl v ECHA: ECFI 7 Mar 2018

(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
References: T-855/16, [2018] EUECJ T-855/16
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: European

Last Update: 17 November 2020; Ref: scu.606007

Goldscheider v The Royal Opera House Covent Garden Foundation: QBD 28 Mar 2018

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.
References: [2018] EWHC 687 (QB)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 17 November 2020; Ref: scu.606878