Boyce v Wyatt Engineering & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 692 (1 May 2001)

Boyce v Wyatt Engineering & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 692 (1 May 2001)

The judge erred in dismissing the claim solely on the basis of the claimant's alleged contributory negligence without properly addressing the pleaded breaches of statutory duty and the occupier's duty of care. There was a sufficient prima facie case of breach of statutory duty and breach of the common duty of care, and the claimant's conduct did not amount to sole responsibility for the accident. The case should be remitted for retrial before a different judge.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 692
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Trevor Boyce; First Respondent/defendant: Wyatt Engineering; Second Respondent/defendant: S J Tapsell Limited; Third Respondent/defendant: Black & Veatch Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted for retrial before a different judge.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Occupiers' Liability, Breach of Statutory Duty, Contributory Negligence, Workplace Safety, Use of Ladders
Tort Employment Law Health and Safety Law Employer's Liability Occupiers' Liability Breach of Statutory Duty Contributory Negligence Workplace Safety +1 more

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Boyce

Appellant/claimant

Wyatt Engineering

First Respondent/defendant

S J Tapsell Limited

Second Respondent/defendant

Black & Veatch Limited

Third Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's injury was caused by breach of statutory duty by the employer (second defendant) under the Construction (Health Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1996
  2. 2 Whether the third defendant, as occupier, breached the common duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was wholly responsible for his own accident (contributory negligence)

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in dismissing the claim solely on the basis of the claimant's alleged contributory negligence without properly addressing the pleaded breaches of statutory duty and the occupier's duty of care. There was a sufficient prima facie case of breach of statutory duty and breach of the common duty of care, and the claimant's conduct did not amount to sole responsibility for the accident. The case should be remitted for retrial before a different judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted for retrial before a different judge.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Case remitted for retrial before a different judge