Kmiecic v Isaacs

Kmiecic v Isaacs

An occupier of premises who merely exercises control over access to and egress from a place of work does not, by that fact alone, incur statutory duties under the 1996 or 2005 Regulations for the safety of workmen; such duties arise only where the occupier controls the way in which construction work is carried out. The Directives do not require a broader imposition of liability.

Parties
Appellant: Kmiecic; Respondent: Isaacs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Construction Site Safety, Statutory Interpretation, Employer's Duties, Liability of Occupiers
Occupiers' Liability Health and Safety Law Employment Law Construction Site Safety Statutory Interpretation Employer's Duties Liability of Occupiers

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kmiecic

Appellant

Isaacs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an occupier of premises incurs statutory duties under the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 and the Work at Height Regulations 2005 by exercising control over access to a place of work
  2. 2 Whether EU Directives require such duties to be imposed on householders controlling access to their premises

Ratio Decidendi

An occupier of premises who merely exercises control over access to and egress from a place of work does not, by that fact alone, incur statutory duties under the 1996 or 2005 Regulations for the safety of workmen; such duties arise only where the occupier controls the way in which construction work is carried out. The Directives do not require a broader imposition of liability.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed