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 accident was caused by the negligence of both the First and Second Defendants in failing to provide a safe place and system of work; the Third Defendant was not liable as occupier because the danger arose from the static condition of the premises but the occupier had taken reasonable steps and had no knowledge of the unsafe system of work; liability is apportioned equally between the First and Second Defendants.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1800 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Mr. Ruben Moreira; Litigation Friend: Ms. Susete Araujo; First Defendant: Mr. Ashley Moran; Second Defendant: Mr. Christopher Dunne; Third Defendant: Prolakeballs Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Liability apportioned 50/50 between First and Second Defendants; Third Defendant not liable; Claimant not guilty of contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Occupiers Liability, Employer's Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability
Tort Employment Health and Safety Negligence Occupiers Liability Employer's Duty of Care 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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. Ruben Moreira

Claimant

Ms. Susete Araujo

Litigation Friend

Mr. Ashley Moran

First Defendant

Mr. Christopher Dunne

Second Defendant

Prolakeballs Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accident was caused by negligence of the First and Second Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the Third Defendant breached the common duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was guilty of contributory negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The accident was caused by the negligence of both the First and Second Defendants in failing to provide a safe place and system of work; the Third Defendant was not liable as occupier because the danger arose from the static condition of the premises but the occupier had taken reasonable steps and had no knowledge of the unsafe system of work; liability is apportioned equally between the First and Second Defendants.

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned 50/50 between First and Second Defendants; Third Defendant not liable; Claimant not guilty of contributory negligence.