Needle v Swallowfield Plc [2020] EWHC 2759 (QB) (16 October 2020)

Needle v Swallowfield Plc [2020] EWHC 2759 (QB) (16 October 2020)

The judge was entitled to find, on the evidence and in the context of the claimant's training and experience, that the manual handling operation did not involve a foreseeable risk of injury. The duties under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 were not engaged, and the appeal fails.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2759
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Stephen Needle; Defendant/respondent: Swallowfield Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Claim at First Instance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, Foreseeable Risk of Injury, Dynamic Risk Assessment, Employer's Duty of Care, Appeal Procedure
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Personal Injury Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 Foreseeable Risk of Injury Dynamic Risk Assessment Employer's Duty of Care Appeal Procedure

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Needle

Claimant/appellant

Swallowfield Plc

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Claim at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the manual handling operation involved a foreseeable risk of injury engaging the employer's duties under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in law or fact in finding no foreseeable risk of injury
  3. 3 Whether the judge improperly conflated the employee's training and dynamic risk assessment with the assessment of risk under the Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find, on the evidence and in the context of the claimant's training and experience, that the manual handling operation did not involve a foreseeable risk of injury. The duties under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 were not engaged, and the appeal fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed