Jaffray v. Grampian Test And Certification Ltd [2006] ScotSC 58 (23 June 2006)

Jaffray v. Grampian Test And Certification Ltd [2006] ScotSC 58 (23 June 2006)

The defenders breached their common law and statutory duties by failing to provide a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and to take appropriate steps (such as providing a face visor and posts) to reduce the risk of injury during the manual handling operation. The operation was covered by the Manual Handling...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] ScotSC 58
Parties
Pursuer: Alan Orr Jaffray; Defender: Grampian Test & Certification Limited (now GTC Group Limited)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Employer's Liability / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Judgment for the pursuer.
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, Risk Assessment, Workplace Injury, Contributory Negligence
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Personal Injury Employer's Duty of Care Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 Risk Assessment Workplace Injury Contributory Negligence

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Orr Jaffray

Pursuer

Grampian Test & Certification Limited (now GTC Group Limited)

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Employer's Liability / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders breached their common law and statutory duties to the pursuer resulting in injury
  2. 2 Whether the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 applied to the operation in question
  3. 3 Whether the defenders' risk assessment and safety measures were adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders breached their common law and statutory duties by failing to provide a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and to take appropriate steps (such as providing a face visor and posts) to reduce the risk of injury during the manual handling operation. The operation was covered by the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992. The pursuer was not contributorily negligent as he followed instructions and only let go of the wire when told it was safe.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the pursuer.

Orders

  • Sustains the first plea in law for the pursuer.
  • Repels the first to eighth pleas for the defenders.