Bhatt v Fontain Motors Ltd

Bhatt v Fontain Motors Ltd

The employer breached regulations 6(2) and 7(2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 by failing to avoid work at height when reasonably practicable and by not providing the most suitable work equipment. These breaches exposed the claimant to a risk that materialised in his injury. The claimant's failure to follow the prescribed system amounted to contributory negligence but did not wholly exonerate the employer.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Harsukhray Bhatt; Defendant/appellant: Fontain Motors Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Statutory Duty, Work at Height Regulations, Contributory Negligence, Selection of Work Equipment, Reasonably Practicable Standard
Employment Law Occupational Health and Safety Employer's Statutory Duty Work at Height Regulations Contributory Negligence Selection of Work Equipment Reasonably Practicable Standard

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harsukhray Bhatt

Claimant/respondent

Fontain Motors Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer breached the Work at Height Regulations 2005 by requiring storage and retrieval of goods at height without adequate safety measures
  2. 2 Whether the breaches were causative of the claimant's injury
  3. 3 Extent of contributory negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The employer breached regulations 6(2) and 7(2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 by failing to avoid work at height when reasonably practicable and by not providing the most suitable work equipment. These breaches exposed the claimant to a risk that materialised in his injury. The claimant's failure to follow the prescribed system amounted to contributory negligence but did not wholly exonerate the employer.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant on liability, subject to one-third reduction for contributory negligence
  • No interference with the trial judge's apportionment of blame