Baker v British Gas Services (Commercial) Ltd & Anor

Baker v British Gas Services (Commercial) Ltd & Anor

The wiring error was introduced at the time of the original installation by the Second Defendant, who is liable for the accident. The First Defendant is also liable under TUPE for the failure of CCES to detect the defect during the 2010 inspection. The Claimant was not contributorily negligent as his actions were reasonable and in line with his training and industry practice.

Parties
Claimant: Darrell Baker (a protected party by his Litigation Friend Kerry Baker); First Defendant: British Gas Services (Commercial) Limited; Second Defendant: J & L Electrics (Lye) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Judgment on Liability (preliminary Issue)
Outcome
Liability established against both Defendants; no contributory negligence found.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Negligence, Personal Injury, Transfer of Undertakings (protection of Employment) Regulations (tupe), Contributory Negligence
Tort Employment Law Health and Safety Employer's Liability Negligence Personal Injury Transfer of Undertakings (protection of Employment) Regulations (tupe) Contributory Negligence

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darrell Baker (a protected party by his Litigation Friend Kerry Baker)

Claimant

British Gas Services (Commercial) Limited

First Defendant

J & L Electrics (Lye) Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Judgment on Liability (preliminary Issue)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the wiring error causing the accident was introduced at installation or later
  2. 2 Whether the First Defendant (British Gas) is liable under TUPE for the acts/omissions of CCES
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The wiring error was introduced at the time of the original installation by the Second Defendant, who is liable for the accident. The First Defendant is also liable under TUPE for the failure of CCES to detect the defect during the 2010 inspection. The Claimant was not contributorily negligent as his actions were reasonable and in line with his training and industry practice.

Court Disposition

Liability established against both Defendants; no contributory negligence found.

Orders

  • Each Defendant is liable to the Claimant for damages to be assessed.
  • J & L Electrics (Lye) Limited to bear 75% of the liability; British Gas Services (Commercial) Limited to bear 25%.