McCook v Lobo & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1760 (19 November 2002)

McCook v Lobo & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1760 (19 November 2002)

The first defendant did not exercise control over the way in which the construction work was carried out and thus owed no duty under regulation 4(2) of the 1996 Regulations. Although there was a breach of regulation 10 of the 1994 Regulations, it was not causative of the claimant's injury. Liability rested solely with the third defendant as employer.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1760
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Ronald Keith McCook; Respondent/first Defendant: Aloysius Lobo; Respondent/second Defendant: London Seafood Limited (Sued as London and Seafood Poultry Limited); Respondent/third Defendant: Stanley Headley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal (personal Injury) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Occupiers' Liability, Statutory Duty, Contributory Negligence, Construction Site Safety
Tort Law Health and Safety Law Employment Law Employer's Liability Occupiers' Liability Statutory Duty Contributory Negligence Construction Site Safety

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Keith McCook

Appellant/claimant

Aloysius Lobo

Respondent/first Defendant

London Seafood Limited (Sued as London and Seafood Poultry Limited)

Respondent/second Defendant

Stanley Headley

Respondent/third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (personal Injury) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first and second defendants owed a duty of care or were in breach of statutory duty to the claimant resulting in liability for personal injury.
  2. 2 Whether breach of regulation 10 of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 by the first defendant was causative of the claimant's injury.
  3. 3 Whether the first defendant exercised sufficient control over the construction work to attract liability under regulation 4(2) of the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996.

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant did not exercise control over the way in which the construction work was carried out and thus owed no duty under regulation 4(2) of the 1996 Regulations. Although there was a breach of regulation 10 of the 1994 Regulations, it was not causative of the claimant's injury. Liability rested solely with the third defendant as employer.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the first defendant; any liability of the appellant to be deferred for consideration by the Costs Judge; taxation of the appellant's costs under Community Legal Services Funding Regulations.