Willis v Cross & Ors

Willis v Cross & Ors

The defendants were not the principal contractor for the purposes of Regulation 16(1)(c) of the 1994 Regulations, and the 1996 Regulations did not apply to the claimant as he was not working on the site. There was no negligence as the skip was similar to those routinely seen in residential streets and liability for acts of third parties was not justified.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Graham Alan Willis; Respondent/defendant: Kenneth James Cross; Respondent/defendant: William Gerrard Farrell; Respondent/defendant: Geoffrey Hugh Logan; Respondent/defendant: Peter James Hubbard
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Negligence, Occupiers' Liability, Construction Regulations
Tort Law Statutory Duty Negligence Occupiers' Liability Construction Regulations

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham Alan Willis

Appellant/claimant

Kenneth James Cross

Respondent/defendant

William Gerrard Farrell

Respondent/defendant

Geoffrey Hugh Logan

Respondent/defendant

Peter James Hubbard

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached statutory duties under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 and the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996
  2. 2 Whether the defendants were liable in negligence for the claimant's injury

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were not the principal contractor for the purposes of Regulation 16(1)(c) of the 1994 Regulations, and the 1996 Regulations did not apply to the claimant as he was not working on the site. There was no negligence as the skip was similar to those routinely seen in residential streets and liability for acts of third parties was not justified.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal is refused