Tafa v Matsim Properties Ltd & Ors

Tafa v Matsim Properties Ltd & Ors

Both the Second and Third Defendants had factual control over the work and over Peter McDonald and the Claimant, and failed to ensure competent supervision, proper planning, and safe systems for work at height. They breached statutory duties under the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 and the Work at Height Regulations 2005, and owed and breached a common law duty of care. The Second Defendant is also liable as a joint tortfeasor. The Claimant was contributorily negligent to a modest degree (10%).

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 / Negligence / Breach of Statutory Duty / Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant against the Second and Third Defendants for 90% of damages to be assessed, subject to further submissions.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Employer's Liability, Workplace Safety, Contributory Negligence
Tort Law Employment Law Health and Safety Law Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Employer's Liability Workplace Safety Contributory Negligence

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 5 Authorities cited 12 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 / Negligence / Breach of Statutory Duty / Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second and Third Defendants owed a duty of care to the Claimant and breached it resulting in injury
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants were in breach of statutory duties under the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 and the Work at Height Regulations 2005
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

Both the Second and Third Defendants had factual control over the work and over Peter McDonald and the Claimant, and failed to ensure competent supervision, proper planning, and safe systems for work at height. They breached statutory duties under the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 and the Work at Height Regulations 2005, and owed and breached a common law duty of care. The Second Defendant is also liable as a joint tortfeasor. The Claimant was contributorily negligent to a modest degree (10%).

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant against the Second and Third Defendants for 90% of damages to be assessed, subject to further submissions.

Orders

  • Second and Third Defendants liable in negligence and breach of statutory duty for 90% of damages to be assessed.
  • Claimant found contributorily negligent to the extent of 10%.