Laverty v Michael McQuoid Construction & Anor [2008] NIQB 68 (29 May 2008)

Laverty v Michael McQuoid Construction & Anor [2008] NIQB 68 (29 May 2008)

The plaintiff was employed by the first defendant, who owed him a duty of care. The main contractors, as occupiers and controllers of the site, owed a duty of care to all workers regarding the defective manhole. Liability was apportioned 70% to the main contractors and 30% to the employer based on control over the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] NIQB 68
Parties
Plaintiff: Alan Laverty; First Named Defendant: Michael McQuoid Construction; Second Named Defendant: Ashley Decorators; Third Named Defendant: Leo Matheson Contracts Limited
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
29 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for £10,000; first defendant entitled to a contribution of £7,000 from the second and third defendants.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Occupier's Liability, Apportionment of Liability, Employment Status, Workplace Safety
Tort Law Employment Law Health and Safety Law Employer's Liability Occupier's Liability Apportionment of Liability Employment Status Workplace Safety

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 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Laverty

Plaintiff

Michael McQuoid Construction

First Named Defendant

Ashley Decorators

Second Named Defendant

Leo Matheson Contracts Limited

Third Named Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was employed by the first defendant, the main contractors, or both
  2. 2 Whether the main contractors owed a duty of care to the plaintiff
  3. 3 Apportionment of liability between employer and main contractors

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was employed by the first defendant, who owed him a duty of care. The main contractors, as occupiers and controllers of the site, owed a duty of care to all workers regarding the defective manhole. Liability was apportioned 70% to the main contractors and 30% to the employer based on control over the area where the accident occurred.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for £10,000; first defendant entitled to a contribution of £7,000 from the second and third defendants.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of £10,000.
  • First defendant entitled to a contribution of £7,000 from the second and third defendants.