Willock & Ors v Corus UK Ltd

Willock & Ors v Corus UK Ltd

The judge erred in finding that employee resistance to ergonomic changes broke the chain of causation for breach of Regulation 17(2); if the position of controls contributed more than de minimis to the risk of backache, liability under the regulation follows regardless of employee objections.

Parties
Appellant: Robert Willock; Appellant: Phillip John Nicholas; Appellant: Shaun Lockwood Price; Respondent: Corus UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted to trial judge for determination of whether control positioning contributed to back pain risk.
Legal Topics
Workplace Injury, Ergonomics, Risk Assessment, Statutory Interpretation
Employment Law Personal Injury Health and Safety Workplace Injury Ergonomics Risk Assessment Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Willock

Appellant

Phillip John Nicholas

Appellant

Shaun Lockwood Price

Appellant

Corus UK Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer breached Regulation 17(2) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 by positioning crane controls so as to expose drivers to risk of back pain
  2. 2 Whether the employer was negligent under common law for not imposing ergonomic changes against employee resistance
  3. 3 Whether failure to conduct timely risk assessment under Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 gives rise to liability

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in finding that employee resistance to ergonomic changes broke the chain of causation for breach of Regulation 17(2); if the position of controls contributed more than de minimis to the risk of backache, liability under the regulation follows regardless of employee objections.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted to trial judge for determination of whether control positioning contributed to back pain risk.

Orders

  • Remit to trial judge to decide if control location contributed more than de minimis to risk and occurrence of backache; if so, judgment for claimants under Regulation 17(2).