Bull Brand Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 748 (TC)
Michael James v EA Shaw
1 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2683 (KB)
High Court
A fairground worker fell while taking down a ride because his boss told him to do something unsafe. The boss was found responsible for the accident, not the worker.
Key Facts
- •Personal injury claim arising from a fall from height at work.
- •Claimant employed by Defendant as a general labourer, assisting with dismantling fairground rides.
- •Accident occurred on 29 September 2019 while dismantling the "Freakout" ride.
- •Claimant fell from a wet metal handrail while attempting to free a seized nut/bolt.
- •Disputes exist regarding instructions from the Defendant's son, Asa Shaw, and whether the Claimant was working alone or with Shaw.
- •Claimant suffered multiple injuries to his right foot.
- •Claim is pleaded in negligence and/or breach of statutory duty under the Work at Height Regulations 2005.
- •The court heard evidence from the Claimant and Asa Shaw.
Legal Principles
Employers owe employees a duty of care to ensure their safety at work.
Common law duty of care
A proven breach of statutory duty under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 does not create a separate cause of action, but may inform the common law duty of care.
Chadwick v Ovenden [2022] EWHC 1701 (QB) paragraphs 57-61
Work at Height Regulations 2005: Regulations 4(1), 4(3), 6(1), 6(3), 6(4), 7 and 8.
Work at Height Regulations 2005
Contributory negligence: Damages reduced to an extent deemed just and equitable, considering the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage.
s1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
Boyle v Kodak Ltd [1969] 2 All ER 439: A defendant company cannot exonerate itself from liability for a breach of statutory duty unless the breach was wholly caused by the claimant employee.
Boyle v Kodak Ltd [1969] 2 All ER 439
Outcomes
Judgment for the Claimant.
The court accepted the Claimant's account of the accident, finding that the Defendant's system of work was unsafe and that the Claimant's actions were a direct result of the Defendant's instructions and unsafe work practices. No contributory negligence was found.