Heeds v Cleveland Police & Anor

Heeds v Cleveland Police & Anor

The Workplace Regulations, not the Equipment Regulations, applied to the accident as the door was part of the premises. The door was not defective or unsuitable under Regulation 18(1) as the risk was not foreseeable or material. The judge's findings on suitability and foreseeability were supported by the evidence, and there was no breach by either respondent under the applicable regulations.

Parties
Appellant: Diane Heeds; First Respondent: The Chief Constable of the Cleveland Police; Second Respondent: Tascor Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Trial Court
Outcome
Appeal against the First Respondent allowed by consent; cross-appeal by First Respondent against Second Respondent dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Workplace (health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Occupiers Liability Act 1957, Interpretation of Statutory Regulations, Personal Injury at Work
Tort Occupiers' Liability Employment Law Health and Safety Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Workplace (health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diane Heeds

Appellant

The Chief Constable of the Cleveland Police

First Respondent

Tascor Services Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Trial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 or the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 applied to the accident
  2. 2 Whether the respondents were liable for breach of statutory duty or negligence
  3. 3 Whether the custody suite door was suitably constructed under Regulation 18(1) of the Workplace Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The Workplace Regulations, not the Equipment Regulations, applied to the accident as the door was part of the premises. The door was not defective or unsuitable under Regulation 18(1) as the risk was not foreseeable or material. The judge's findings on suitability and foreseeability were supported by the evidence, and there was no breach by either respondent under the applicable regulations.

Court Disposition

Appeal against the First Respondent allowed by consent; cross-appeal by First Respondent against Second Respondent dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the appellant against the First Respondent in the sum of £175,000.00 plus costs of the action and appeal.
  • First Respondent's cross-appeal against the Second Respondent dismissed.