Newton-Sealey v Armorgroup Services Ltd & Ors

Newton-Sealey v Armorgroup Services Ltd & Ors

There is no real prospect of the claimant establishing a contract of employment with AG (UK) or AG plc, as the only contract was with AG (Jersey) and there is no necessity to imply further contracts. However, there is a real prospect of the claimant establishing that AG (UK) and AG plc owed him a duty of care in tort, based on the group’s conduct, recruitment, deployment, and operational arrangements, and the presentation of the group as a single enterprise.

Parties
Claimant: David Newton-Sealey (suing by his litigation friend, Rachel Margetts); Defendant: ArmorGroup Services Ltd; Defendant: ArmorGroup Services (Jersey) Ltd; Defendant: ArmorGroup Services International Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Employer's Liability / Application for Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out
Outcome
Summary judgment/strike out refused in tort; granted in contract.
Legal Topics
Enterprise Liability, Corporate Group Liability, Duty of Care, Temporary Employment, Negligence, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Tort Law Contract Law Employment Law Corporate Law Enterprise Liability Corporate Group Liability Duty of Care Temporary Employment +3 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Newton-Sealey (suing by his litigation friend, Rachel Margetts)

Claimant

ArmorGroup Services Ltd

Defendant

ArmorGroup Services (Jersey) Ltd

Defendant

ArmorGroup Services International Plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Employer's Liability / Application for Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether members of a corporate group other than the direct employer can be liable in contract or tort for personal injuries to an employee
  2. 2 Whether a contract of employment can be implied with other group members
  3. 3 Whether a duty of care in tort is owed by other group members to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

There is no real prospect of the claimant establishing a contract of employment with AG (UK) or AG plc, as the only contract was with AG (Jersey) and there is no necessity to imply further contracts. However, there is a real prospect of the claimant establishing that AG (UK) and AG plc owed him a duty of care in tort, based on the group’s conduct, recruitment, deployment, and operational arrangements, and the presentation of the group as a single enterprise.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment/strike out refused in tort; granted in contract.

Orders

  • Claims in contract against AG (UK) and AG plc struck out or summary judgment entered for those defendants on contract claims.
  • Claims in tort (duty of care/negligence) against AG (UK) and AG plc allowed to proceed to trial.