Moon v Garrett & Ors

Moon v Garrett & Ors

It was reasonably foreseeable that a delivery driver unloading blocks near a deep pit could slip and fall in, and Mr Garrett, as occupier, was under a duty to provide a proper barrier. The judge’s findings on foreseeability and standard of care were within his discretion. The Sanderson order for costs was justified...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Michael Moon; Appellant: Paul James Garrett; Employer/defendant: C H Kendal and Sons; Employer/defendant: Travis Perkins plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, Negligence, Construction (health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996, Costs Orders, Sanderson Order
Tort Law Occupiers’ Liability Civil Procedure Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 Negligence Construction (health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 Costs Orders Sanderson Order

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Moon

Respondent

Paul James Garrett

Appellant

C H Kendal and Sons

Employer/defendant

Travis Perkins plc

Employer/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Garrett, as occupier, was liable under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 for injuries suffered by Mr Moon.
  2. 2 Whether the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 imposed a duty on Mr Garrett towards Mr Moon.
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge correctly exercised discretion in awarding a Sanderson costs order against Mr Garrett.

Ratio Decidendi

It was reasonably foreseeable that a delivery driver unloading blocks near a deep pit could slip and fall in, and Mr Garrett, as occupier, was under a duty to provide a proper barrier. The judge’s findings on foreseeability and standard of care were within his discretion. The Sanderson order for costs was justified as it was reasonable to join the employers, and Mr Garrett had sought to blame them.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against liability dismissed; judgment for Mr Moon against Mr Garrett upheld.
  • Appeal against costs order dismissed; Mr Garrett to pay the costs of Mr Moon and the employers (Sanderson order).