Summary of Recent Cases – Substantive Law


PERSONAL INJURY & FATAL ACCIDENTS

Employers’ Duty To Carry Out Risk Assessment Non-Delegable But Capable Of Compliance By Satisfaction Contractor Has Carried Out Thorough Risk Assessment

Uren v. (1) Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd (2) Ministry of Defence, CA, 2/2/11

The Court of Appeal held that an employer’s duty to undertake a risk assessment in respect of an activity was non-delegable, as such duty was closely related to the common law duty to carry out such risk assessment. Accordingly, in the event that an employer used a contractor in respect of an activity and satisfied himself that the contractor had carried out a thorough risk assessment, this may be sufficient to satisfy a court that the duty on the employer to carry out a risk assessment had been satisfied. On the facts, it was held by the Court of Appeal that the contractor had not carried out a thorough risk assessment and therefore it could not be argued that the employer could rely upon such assessment in satisfaction of its non-delegable duty.

Owner And Occupier Of Warehouse Owes Statutory Duty To Provide Safe System Of Work To Contractors’ Employees

Ceva Logistics Ltd v. Lynch & Anor, CA, 25/2/11

The Court of Appeal held that pursuant to regulations 4(2)(c) and 17 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, the owner and occupier of a warehouse owed a statutory duty to provide a safe system of work to employees of its contractors. On the facts, whilst the workplace owner could not tell the contractors’ employees how to do their work, it had both the right and ability to control the way in which such employees moved around the warehouse.

Consideration Of Disclosure of Earlier Expert Reports Where A Change Of Experts Occurred

Edwards-Tubb v. JD Wetherspoon Plc, CA, 25/2/11

The Court of Appeal held that pursuant to CPR r. 35.4, the Court had a discretionary power to impose a condition of disclosure of an earlier expert report where a change of expert subsequently occurred and such discretion existed irrespective of whether the change of expert took place pre- or post-issue. The Court of Appeal further held that such discretion should usually be exercised where the proposed change of expert occurred in circumstances where the pre-action protocol had already been engaged. However, the same justifications for ordering disclosure did not apply in respect of an expert instructed to give advice pre-protocol at the party’s own expense and who was not instructed to write a report for the Court.

March 13, 2011 · Editorial Team · Comments Closed
Posted in: Cases