Chilcott v Thermal Transfer Ltd

Chilcott v Thermal Transfer Ltd

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by applying a hindsight-based approach rather than determining whether, at the time the notice was served, the relevant risk existed and warranted the service of a Prohibition Notice. The correct test is whether the Tribunal, on the evidence, would have served the notice at that time, not with the benefit of hindsight. On the undisputed facts, the identified contravention did not exist at the relevant time, so the notice must be cancelled.

Parties
Claimant: Chilcott; Defendant: Thermal Transfer Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Employment Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Prohibition Notice cancelled; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Prohibition Notice, Appeal Procedure, Error of Law, Workplace Safety, Employment Tribunal Powers
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Administrative Law Prohibition Notice Appeal Procedure Error of Law Workplace Safety Employment Tribunal Powers

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chilcott

Claimant

Thermal Transfer Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Employment Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct test for an Employment Tribunal to apply when hearing an appeal against a Prohibition Notice under section 24 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974?
  2. 2 Did the Employment Tribunal err in law in its approach to the appeal against the Prohibition Notice?

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by applying a hindsight-based approach rather than determining whether, at the time the notice was served, the relevant risk existed and warranted the service of a Prohibition Notice. The correct test is whether the Tribunal, on the evidence, would have served the notice at that time, not with the benefit of hindsight. On the undisputed facts, the identified contravention did not exist at the relevant time, so the notice must be cancelled.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Prohibition Notice cancelled; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The Prohibition Notice is cancelled.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.