Matthews v. Glasgow City Council [2006] ScotCS CSIH_1 (05 January 2006)

Matthews v. Glasgow City Council [2006] ScotCS CSIH_1 (05 January 2006)

Redecoration work undertaken by an employee in domestic premises falls within the definition of 'construction work' under Regulation 2(1) of the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996; the statutory duties under Regulations 5(2) and 5(3) applied to the respondents as employers; the sheriff's restrictive interpretation was erroneous.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSIH_1
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Andrew Matthews; Defenders and Respondents: Glasgow City Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Inner House, Court of Session, Post Proof
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Employer's Statutory Duty, Construction (health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996, Definition of Construction Work, Workplace Safety, Statutory Interpretation
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Statutory Interpretation Employer's Statutory Duty Construction (health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 Definition of Construction Work Workplace Safety

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

Parties

Andrew Matthews

Pursuer and Appellant

Glasgow City Council

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Inner House, Court of Session, Post Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does redecoration work in domestic premises fall within the definition of 'construction work' under the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996?
  2. 2 Are the respondents liable for breach of statutory duty under Regulations 5(2) and 5(3)?

Ratio Decidendi

Redecoration work undertaken by an employee in domestic premises falls within the definition of 'construction work' under Regulation 2(1) of the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996; the statutory duties under Regulations 5(2) and 5(3) applied to the respondents as employers; the sheriff's restrictive interpretation was erroneous.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Recall of sheriff's interlocutor dated 23 July 2004
  • Sustain appellant's plea-in-law 1 (statutory case)