This site uses cookies.

News Category 3

When Can a Claimant Recover the Costs of Attending an Inquest? - Malcolm Henke, Horwich Farrelly

22/03/18. It is understandable that solicitors involved in making civil claims want to be paid for the work they undertake. However, there are two hurdles to be negotiated on the way to securing payment. First, the work for which the claimant seeks to recover the cost must have been (a) of use and service in the claim; (b) relevant to the matters in issue in the claim; and (c) attributable to the defendants’ conduct. These tests arise from the case of Gibson’s Settlement Trust (1981) and all three limbs must be passed. Secondly, any costs that pass the Gibson tests must then be proportionate in amount, meaning that they must bear a reasonable relationship to

(a) the sums in issue in the proceedings;

(b) the value of any non-monetary relief in issue in the proceedings;

(c) the complexity of the litigation;

(d) any additional work generated by the conduct of the paying party; and

(e) any wider factors involved in the proceedings, such as reputation or public importance [Part 44.3(5) Civil Procedure Rules].

Both of these issues came before the court in the recent case of Douglas v Ministry of Defence and another and in relation to a relatively common area of concern: could the claimant justify the cost of attendance at the lengthy inquest into the cause of her son’s death in prison...

Image cc en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coroners_Court_Entrance.jpg

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

Section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act: A Practitioner's Overview - Laura Howarde, Weightmans LLP

22/03/18. With the focus mainly on sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, that concern an employer’s duties to their employees and those not in their employment, section 7 of the 1974 Act is often forgotten. This particular section outlines the general duties of an employee and suggests that an individual can be held accountable for their own actions whilst at work.

Section 7 states that ‘it shall be the duty of every employee while at work to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work’. It also imposes a duty on the employee to co-operate with their employer (so far as is necessary) to enable the employer to comply with their duties under ss.2 and 3. What this means is that employees are required to obey any policies or procedures that are put in place by their employer for the purpose of ensuring the workforces health, safety and welfare whilst at work.

Charges under section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 are seldom laid by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), with 239 prosecutions brought under the section between 2000 and 2012. 181 of these prosecutions however, resulted in convictions equating to a 76% success rate.

The HSE indicate that the standard required to lay a charge under section 7 is relatively high and state that where the employer appears ‘primarily responsible’ for the circumstances giving rise to a potential prosecution, action should normally be taken against the employer alone.

Further it states that consideration should be given to how the other employees were conducting themselves, before a charge is brought under section 7. This suggests that if more than one employee is acting in this unsafe manner, then it is the fault of the employer, rather than the individuals, for permitting an unsafe culture to develop.

Finally, the guidance states that consideration should be given to whether the employee has received previous warnings for their conduct and whether the offence created an ‘obvious risk’.

It is therefore suggested that charges under s.7 should only be brought in extraordinary circumstances, when an employee has completely disregarded the policies and procedures put in place by their employer and has been the primary cause of creating an unsafe situation.

In fields such as construction, where employees are governed by such strict systems of work relating to health and safety, it is understandable how such an offence where the employee is held accountable for the failing is unusual.

The HSE were satisfied however that such an offence had been committed after a pedestrian was seriously injured at a site in Wimbledon, South West London in August 2017. The pedestrian who was also an employee of the company was crushed by an excavator driven by Mr David Rupeika.

CCTV footage of the incident shows Mr Rupeika driving the 360 Excavator out of a warehouse and towards another excavator that was manoeuvring in the yard. He then proceeds to rotate the cab and drive the excavator at speed, whilst he was facing sideways towards two pedestrians who were standing in an area of safety just outside the doors of the warehouse. The pedestrian was crushed against the wall of the warehouse and sustained serious injuries.

Mr Rupeika pleaded not guilty to the two charges brought against him under section 7(a) and a jury at Southwark Crown Court heard that the policies and procedures were in place to avoid such an incident occurring. The prosecution suggested that the circumstances arose as a result of Mr Rupeika operating the Excavator at excess speed and without regard for the health and safety of his co-workers.

Mr Rupeika was found guilty of both counts and was sentenced to six months in custody, suspended for two years and was ordered to undertake 40 hours of unpaid work. He was also ordered to pay Prosecution costs and the statutory victim surcharge.

The message therefore that should be communicated is that employees are not immune from prosecution and they cannot expect that their employer will be liable if something goes wrong. As such they should be aware of their responsibility to look after their own health and safety, as well as the health and safety of others. This can be done through training and/or visible reminders on posters and flyers to put the issue and the potential risks in the forefront of employees’ minds. Employees need to be alive to the fact that on the occasion that they ignore a safe system of work that they may consider too onerous or cumbersome, they could find themselves in the dock.

Laura Howarde
Solicitor
Weightmans LLP

Image ©iStockphoto.com/Gannet77

Asbestos and Minimal Risk: Is There a Threshold? - Patrick West, St John's Chambers

20/03/18. Veronica Bussey (Widow & Executrix of the Estate of David Edwin Anthony Bussey) v 00654701 Ltd (Formerly Anglia Heating Ltd) [2018] EWCA Civ 243 CA (Civ Div) (Jackson LJ, Underhill LJ, Moylan LJ) 22/02/2018

There are currently around 2,500 deaths from mesothelioma each year in the UK.” (NHS Choices website 2018)

Let that sink in. That means that in this country nearly 7 people a day are dying from the most devastating of all occupational illnesses.

But it is perhaps not at all surprising given that mesothelioma can be caused by the victim ingesting only a single fibre of asbestos.

In the case of Bussey the Court of Appeal has examined whether there is a narrow test for breach of duty following the findings in Williams v University of Birmingham [2011] EWCA Civ 1242 which appeared to establish a need for Claimants to show they were exposed to greater concentrations of asbestos fibres then the “safe” level set out in the TDN13 (March 1970 and January 1971 Technical Data Note 13 (TDN 13), Department of Employment and Productivity).

The test of an employer's liability for common law negligence is well known and based on the judgment in Stokes v Guest, Keen and Nettlefold (Bolts and Nuts) Ltd [1968] 1 WLR 1776, 1783, Swanwick J...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/stozka

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

Summary of Recent Cases, March 2018

15/03/18. Here is a summary of the recent notable court cases over the past month. You can also receive these for free by registering for our PI Brief Update newsletter. Just select "Free Newsletter" from the menu at the top of this page and fill in your email address.

Summary of Recent Cases - Substantive Law

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4, [2018] 2 WLR 595

In the course of an operation to arrest a suspected drug dealer, a police officer foresaw the possibility of the suspect attempting to escape and requested back-up officers. When the arrest was attempted, the officer had...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/spxChrome

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

Res Ipsa Loquitur In Clinical Negligence - Aneurin Maloney, Hardwicke

01/03/18. The maxim res ipsa loquitur or ‘the thing speaks for itself’, is a long-standing rule of evidence more commonly utilised in other areas of personal injury law. In a PI setting it has been applied in a wide range of cases from objects falling from buildings, to malfunctioning machines, and unexpected items in food.

There are strict controls on the application of res ipsa loquitur, with 3 conditions:

  1. The event is one that would ordinarily not occur in the absence of fault;

2. The thing causing the damage must have been under the control of the defendant;

3. There is no evidence as to why or how the accident occurred.

Once those conditions are met, the court may infer negligence. It is the defendant who must then prove that the accident was not caused by their negligence. Where the defendant cannot discharge that burden, a claimant may succeed in their claim without proving precisely how their injury was caused...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/ericsphotography

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.