Moreira v Moran t/a ACH Joinery and Building Contractors & Ors [2021] EWHC 1800 (QB) (01 July 2021)

Moreira v Moran t/a ACH Joinery and Building Contractors & Ors [2021] EWHC 1800 (QB) (01 July 2021)

The First and Second Defendants were negligent and equally responsible for the accident, having failed to provide a safe place and system of work. The Claimant was an employee of the Second Defendant and not guilty of contributory negligence. The Third Defendant was not liable as occupier because he had no knowledge of the unsafe system of work, had reasonably relied on the competence of the contractor, and the danger arose from the static condition of the premises only after the guardrail was removed without his knowledge.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1800
Parties
Claimant: Mr. Ruben Moreira (by Ms. Susete Araujo, his Wife and Litigation Friend); First Defendant: Mr. Ashley Moran T/A ACH Joinery and Building Contractors; Second Defendant: Mr. Christopher Dunne T/A CD Landscaping and Construction; Third Defendant: Prolakeballs Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim against First and Second Defendants succeeds; claim against Third Defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Employer's Duty of Care, Occupiers Liability Act 1957, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability
Tort Law Occupiers' Liability Employment Law Negligence Employer's Duty of Care Occupiers Liability Act 1957 Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Liability

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. Ruben Moreira (by Ms. Susete Araujo, his Wife and Litigation Friend)

Claimant

Mr. Ashley Moran T/A ACH Joinery and Building Contractors

First Defendant

Mr. Christopher Dunne T/A CD Landscaping and Construction

Second Defendant

Prolakeballs Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First and Second Defendants were negligent and caused the Claimant's injuries
  2. 2 Whether the Third Defendant owed and breached a duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 or at common law
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was guilty of contributory negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The First and Second Defendants were negligent and equally responsible for the accident, having failed to provide a safe place and system of work. The Claimant was an employee of the Second Defendant and not guilty of contributory negligence. The Third Defendant was not liable as occupier because he had no knowledge of the unsafe system of work, had reasonably relied on the competence of the contractor, and the danger arose from the static condition of the premises only after the guardrail was removed without his knowledge.

Court Disposition

Claim against First and Second Defendants succeeds; claim against Third Defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • Liability apportioned 50/50 between First and Second Defendants.
  • No liability on the Third Defendant.