Tafa v Matsim Properties Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 1302 (QB) (23 May 2011)

Tafa v Matsim Properties Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 1302 (QB) (23 May 2011)

The court found that the Second and Third Defendants exercised sufficient control over the work and/or the person (Peter McDonald) who directed the Claimant, and failed to ensure proper planning, supervision, and safety measures for work at height. Both Defendants were in breach of their statutory duties under the Construction and Work at Height Regulations, and these breaches were causative of the Claimant's injuries. The Second Defendant was not found to have owed a personal duty of care as project manager, but was liable as a director who procured or authorised the breaches by the Third Defendant.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1302 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Astrit Tafa; First Defendant: Matsim Properties Limited; Second Defendant: Dr Carole Gilling-Smith; Third Defendant: Agora Gynaecology and Fertility Centre Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Employer's Liability / Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
Liability established against the Second and Third Defendants; claim against First Defendant discontinued.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Workplace Safety, Directors' Personal Liability, Construction Regulations, Work at Height Regulations
Tort Health and Safety Employment Law Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Workplace Safety Directors' Personal Liability Construction Regulations +1 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Astrit Tafa

Claimant

Matsim Properties Limited

First Defendant

Dr Carole Gilling-Smith

Second Defendant

Agora Gynaecology and Fertility Centre Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Employer's Liability / Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second and/or Third Defendant owed a duty of care to the Claimant under common law and/or statute
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants breached their duty of care and statutory obligations under the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 and the Work at Height Regulations 2005
  3. 3 Whether the Second Defendant is personally liable as a director or joint tortfeasor

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Second and Third Defendants exercised sufficient control over the work and/or the person (Peter McDonald) who directed the Claimant, and failed to ensure proper planning, supervision, and safety measures for work at height. Both Defendants were in breach of their statutory duties under the Construction and Work at Height Regulations, and these breaches were causative of the Claimant's injuries. The Second Defendant was not found to have owed a personal duty of care as project manager, but was liable as a director who procured or authorised the breaches by the Third Defendant.

Court Disposition

Liability established against the Second and Third Defendants; claim against First Defendant discontinued.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Claimant on liability against the Second and Third Defendants
  • Assessment of damages to be determined at a later hearing