Vibixa Ltd v Komori UK Ltd & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 536 (09 May 2006)

Vibixa Ltd v Komori UK Ltd & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 536 (09 May 2006)

General enabling words in the preamble to the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 did not invoke section 15(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Even if they had, health and safety regulations under section 15(1) cannot form the basis of a claim by a purchaser of machinery for property damage or loss of profits. The judge was correct to strike out the claims based on breach of statutory duty.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 536
Parties
Claimant/1st Appellant: Vibixa Ltd; Claimant/2nd Appellant: Polestar Jowetts Ltd; Defendant/1st Respondent: Komori UK Ltd; Defendant/2nd Respondent: Spectral Technology Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Order Striking Out Part of Claim (pre Trial)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Statutory Instruments, Scope of Enabling Powers, Civil Liability for Breach of Statutory Duty, Implementation of EU Directives, Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974
Statutory Interpretation Health and Safety Law Product Liability Interpretation of Statutory Instruments Scope of Enabling Powers Civil Liability for Breach of Statutory Duty Implementation of EU Directives Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vibixa Ltd

Claimant/1st Appellant

Polestar Jowetts Ltd

Claimant/2nd Appellant

Komori UK Ltd

Defendant/1st Respondent

Spectral Technology Ltd

Defendant/2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Order Striking Out Part of Claim (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether general enabling words in the preamble to a statutory instrument invoke unexpressed enabling powers such as section 15(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 were made under section 15(1) of the 1974 Act
  3. 3 Whether health and safety regulations under section 15(1) of the 1974 Act can form the basis of a claim for property damage or loss of profits by a purchaser of machinery

Ratio Decidendi

General enabling words in the preamble to the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 did not invoke section 15(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Even if they had, health and safety regulations under section 15(1) cannot form the basis of a claim by a purchaser of machinery for property damage or loss of profits. The judge was correct to strike out the claims based on breach of statutory duty.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The judge's order striking out the appellants' claims based on breach of statutory duty is upheld.