Cockerill v CXK Ltd & Anor

Cockerill v CXK Ltd & Anor

Neither the employer nor the occupier breached their respective duties of care. The step was clearly marked, visible, and an ordinary feature of the premises. The open door did not create a relevant risk, and no further warnings or markings were required. The employer reasonably relied on the occupier’s risk...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Janice Cockerill; First Defendant: CXK Limited; Second Defendant: Artwise Community Partnership
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Employer and Occupier Liability / Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Occupier's Liability, Negligence, Risk Assessment, Workplace Accidents
Tort Law Employment Law Health and Safety Law Employer's Duty of Care Occupier's Liability Negligence Risk Assessment Workplace Accidents

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janice Cockerill

Claimant

CXK Limited

First Defendant

Artwise Community Partnership

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Employer and Occupier Liability / Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer (CXK Limited) breached its common law duty of care to the claimant under the post-2013 Act regime
  2. 2 Whether the occupier (Artwise Community Partnership) breached its duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
  3. 3 Whether the open door or insufficient marking/signage constituted a breach of duty causing the accident

Ratio Decidendi

Neither the employer nor the occupier breached their respective duties of care. The step was clearly marked, visible, and an ordinary feature of the premises. The open door did not create a relevant risk, and no further warnings or markings were required. The employer reasonably relied on the occupier’s risk assessment and briefing. The accident was not caused by any negligent act or omission by either defendant.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed