Agnieszka Swierska against Mathiesons Bakery LTD (Sheriff Court Civil) [2024] SCEDIN 43 (11 October 2024)

Agnieszka Swierska against Mathiesons Bakery LTD (Sheriff Court Civil) [2024] SCEDIN 43 (11 October 2024)

The pursuer did not suffer loss, injury, or damage as a result of the defender's fault or negligence. The evidence did not establish that the defender breached its common law duty of care in relation to manual handling operations. The employer provided training and carried out risk assessment, and there was insufficient evidence of foreseeable risk or breach. The pursuer's evidence was unreliable regarding the mechanism of injury and prior physiotherapy. The regulations do not create civil liability post-2013 Act, and the pursuer failed to prove negligence.

Citation
[2024] SCEDIN 43
Parties
Pursuer: Agnieszka Swierska; Defender: Mathiesons Bakery Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Defender assoilzied (absolved from liability)
Legal Topics
Manual Handling, Employer's Duty of Care, Common Law Negligence, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, Manual Handling Operations Regulations
Employment Law Personal Injury Health and Safety Manual Handling Employer's Duty of Care Common Law Negligence Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 Manual Handling Operations Regulations

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agnieszka Swierska

Pursuer

Mathiesons Bakery Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender breached its common law duty of care in relation to manual handling operations
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer suffered injury as a result of the defender's negligence
  3. 3 The evidential and legal relationship between health and safety regulations and common law duties post-Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer did not suffer loss, injury, or damage as a result of the defender's fault or negligence. The evidence did not establish that the defender breached its common law duty of care in relation to manual handling operations. The employer provided training and carried out risk assessment, and there was insufficient evidence of foreseeable risk or breach. The pursuer's evidence was unreliable regarding the mechanism of injury and prior physiotherapy. The regulations do not create civil liability post-2013 Act, and the pursuer failed to prove negligence.

Court Disposition

Defender assoilzied (absolved from liability)

Orders

  • Action dismissed
  • No order as to expenses