Chadwick v R H Ovenden Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1701 (QB) (29 June 2022)

Chadwick v R H Ovenden Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1701 (QB) (29 June 2022)

Both Defendants owed the Claimant a duty of care: the First Defendant as controller of the workplace under contract and the Second Defendant as employer. Both breached their duties by failing to ensure a safe system of work, including failing to arrange a competent safety inspection before dismantling the aircraft. The risk of an oxygen cylinder being present was foreseeable and reasonable precautions were not taken. The Claimant was not so reckless as to break the chain of causation. Both Defendants are liable for the damages caused by the accident.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1701
Parties
Claimant: Paul Chadwick; First Defendant: R H Ovenden Limited; Second Defendant: Rian Hamilton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence / Liability Trial (quantum to Be Determined at Later Hearing)
Outcome
Both Defendants found liable to the Claimant for damages caused by the accident. Quantum to be determined at a further hearing.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Duty of Care, Workplace Accidents, Negligence, Employment Status, Control of Premises, Common Law Negligence Post ERRA 2013
Tort Law Employment Law Health and Safety Law Employer's Liability Duty of Care Workplace Accidents Negligence Employment Status +2 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Chadwick

Claimant

R H Ovenden Limited

First Defendant

Rian Hamilton

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Negligence / Liability Trial (quantum to Be Determined at Later Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant owed a duty of care to the Claimant as controller of the workplace
  2. 2 Whether the Second Defendant was the employer of the Claimant and owed a duty of care
  3. 3 Whether either or both Defendants breached their duty of care

Ratio Decidendi

Both Defendants owed the Claimant a duty of care: the First Defendant as controller of the workplace under contract and the Second Defendant as employer. Both breached their duties by failing to ensure a safe system of work, including failing to arrange a competent safety inspection before dismantling the aircraft. The risk of an oxygen cylinder being present was foreseeable and reasonable precautions were not taken. The Claimant was not so reckless as to break the chain of causation. Both Defendants are liable for the damages caused by the accident.

Court Disposition

Both Defendants found liable to the Claimant for damages caused by the accident. Quantum to be determined at a further hearing.

Orders

  • Declaration of liability against both Defendants for damages to be assessed.
  • Second Defendant to pay costs occasioned by the purported expert report of Mr Marshall.