Master and Servant – Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 (8 Edw. VII, cap. 58), Schedule I (16) – Weekly Payment – Review – Partial Incapacity – Inability to Find Suitable Work – No Change in Physical Condition
the Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Macnaghten, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Shaw
[1912] UKHL 708, 49 SLR 708
Bailii
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906
England and Wales
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.619244
EAT Time Off – HEALTH and SAFETY
The right to paid time off for safety representatives – remedy for denial of the right – Regulation 11(3) of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977
Having found that the Respondent had acted in breach of the Regulations by denying the Claimant (an appointed safety representative) paid time off work for a prescribed purpose, the ET made a declaration to that effect but concluded that no award of compensation should be made under Regulation 11(3) of the 1977 Regulations. Whilst allowing that an injury to feelings award was permissible under the Regulations, the ET did not find that the Claimant had established any such injury in fact in this case. Considering the possibility of an award for what was just and equitable having regard to the employer’s default and the loss sustained by the Claimant, more generally, the ET equally concluded that no award should be made.
The Claimant appealed, arguing that the ET had erred in its approach, alternatively had reached a perverse conclusion.
The Respondent resisted the appeal, relying on the ET’s reasoning but also seeking to argue for the first time that no award for injury to feelings was permissible under Regulation 11(3).
Held: dismissing the appeal
There were no exceptional reasons to permit the Respondent to take a point for the first time on appeal but, obiter, injury to feelings awards related to claims of discrimination (applying London Borough of Hackney v Adams [2003] IRLR 402 EAT and Santos Gomes v Higher Level Care Ltd UKEAT/0017/16/RN) and not to the non-discriminatory breach of a right for the purposes of Regulation 11(3).
The ET had approached its task correctly, whether viewed as considering compensation for injury to feelings or in respect of what was just and equitable more generally (following Skiggs v South West Trains Ltd [2005] IRLR 459 EAT). Its reasoning could not be read as limited to one paragraph; it had taken into account relevant factors and had reached a permissible conclusion on the material before it.
Eady QC HHJ
[2016] UKEAT 0125 – 16 – 1710
Bailii
Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 11(3)
England and Wales
Employment, Health and Safety
Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570399
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
European
Citing:
Approved – 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 . .
See Also – Pfeiffer etc v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV 4 ECJ 5-Oct-2004
ECJ 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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Greenalls 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 . .
Cited – Attridge 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 . .
Cited – English 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 . .
Cited – British 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 . .
Cited – O’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 . .
Cited – Twentieth 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 . .
Cited – Forensic 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 . .
Cited – British 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 . .
Cited – R and S Pilling (T/A Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd SC 27-Mar-2019
The driver’s car failed its MOT., He took it to private premises to repair. In those repairs, inflammable materials ignited and the fire spread those premises and adjoining third party premises. The premise’ insurers paid the owners of both and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health and Safety, Transport, Employment, Health and Safety
Leading Case
Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.215895
Protection of The Safety and Health of Workers – Weekly Rest Period : Judgment
C-306/16, [2017] EUECJ C-306/16
Bailii
European
Health and Safety
Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.599686
Moore=Bick, Tomlinson LJJ, Sir Robin Jacob
[2015] EWCA Civ 189
Bailii
England and Wales
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544259
The five claimants had been employed by the defendant. Whilst at work, and in breach of Health an Safety regulations, they had been exposed to complex halogenated platinum salts, and now claimed a sensitisation to such salts. The defendant argued that the sensitisation was not an injury capable of founding a claim.
Held: The claims failed.
Jay J said: ‘the scope of the rule of public policy in operation in these cases, and all cases of employers’ liability, is to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of employees from the careless acts and omissions of their employers; and, in the event of breach, where personal injury is suffered to require the payment of condign compensation. The concepts of health, safety and welfare, properly understood, embody the notion of protection from personal injury and not from economic or financial loss suffered without personal injury. Put another way, it is because the implied contractual duty is precisely conterminous with and reflects the obligations imposed by the law of tort – and, in particular, the tort of negligence – that the outcome must be the same however the cause of action is sought to be classified.’
Jay J
[2014] EWHC 3957 (QB), [2015] PIQR P10, [2014] CN 2094
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
At QBD – Greenway and Others v Johnson Matthey Plc CA 28-Apr-2016
The claimants had been exposed to platinum salts while employed by the defendant company in breach of the employer’s duties in negligence and Health and Safety. Though they had suffered no symptoms, they claimed in damages. The employer said that no . .
At QBD – Dryden and Others v Johnson Matthey Plc SC 21-Mar-2018
Sensitisation to salt can be personal injury
The claimants, had developed platinum salt sensitisation due to the defendant employer’s breach of health and safety regulations and common law duty, claimed a cause of action for personal injury. Platinum salt sensitisation is, in itself, an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539347
(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
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:
Cited – Sindicato 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:
Cited – British 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 . .
Cited – MacCartney 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] . .
Cited – Hughes 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 . .
Approved – 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 . .
Cited – O’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 . .
Cited – Gallagher 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 . .
Cited – Hughes 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
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:
Cited – McGhee 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 . .
Approved – Wilsher 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 . .
Approved – Bonnington 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 from – Fairchild 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 . .
Cited – Chapman 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 . .
Cited – Empress 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 . .
Cited – Kuwait 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 . .
Cited – Rahman 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 . .
Cited – Nicholson 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 . .
Cited – Gardiner 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:
Cited – Six 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. . .
Cited – Coudert 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 . .
Cited – Donachie 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 . .
Cited – Chester 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 . .
Cited – Gregg 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 . .
Cited – Rothwell 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 . .
Cited – AD 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 . .
Cited – Barker 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 . .
Cited – Brett 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. . .
Cited – Rolls 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 . .
Cited – Ashley 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 . .
Cited – Environment 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 . .
Cited – Sanderson 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 . .
Cited – Wootton 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 . .
Cited – Halsey 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.
Cited – Sienkiewicz 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 . .
Applied – Willmore 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. . .
Cited – Sutton 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 . .
Cited – AXA 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 . .
Cited – Employers’ 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 . .
Cited – Employers’ 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 . .
Cited – Employers’ 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 . .
Cited – Zurich 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 . .
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 . .
Cited – Willers 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
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:
Applied – Barnes 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 . .
Cited – Flood 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 . .
Cited – Ammah 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
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:
Cited – Hague (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 House – HM 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
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 From – Knowles 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
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:
Cited – Nimmo 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
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
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
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:
Cited – Chilcott 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
