Yates v National Trust [2014] EWHC 222 (QB) (10 February 2014)

Yates v National Trust [2014] EWHC 222 (QB) (10 February 2014)

The National Trust did not owe the claimant a duty of care in the selection of its independent contractor, as the claimant was not an employee of the Trust, the Trust exercised no control over the method of work, and the risks were those ordinarily incident to the claimant's calling as a tree surgeon. The hazardous...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 222
Parties
Claimant: Jamie Alexander Yates; Defendant: National Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Liability
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Independent Contractors, Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, Work at Height Regulations 2005
Tort Law Occupiers' Liability Negligence Duty of Care Independent Contractors Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 Work at Height Regulations 2005

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jamie Alexander Yates

Claimant

National Trust

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the National Trust owe the claimant a duty of care in the selection of its independent contractor?
  2. 2 Was the National Trust negligent in its selection of Joe Jackman as contractor?
  3. 3 Does the hazardous nature of tree surgery impose a higher duty on occupiers towards contractors' employees?

Ratio Decidendi

The National Trust did not owe the claimant a duty of care in the selection of its independent contractor, as the claimant was not an employee of the Trust, the Trust exercised no control over the method of work, and the risks were those ordinarily incident to the claimant's calling as a tree surgeon. The hazardous nature of tree surgery did not elevate the duty to the level required for liability to the contractor's employees. Even if such a duty existed, the Trust was not negligent in its selection of the contractor, who had performed numerous previous jobs satisfactorily.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the defendant on the preliminary issue of liability
  • No order as to damages