Spencer-Franks v. Kellog Brown & Root Ltd & Anor [2005] ScotSC 87 (22 December 2005)

Spencer-Franks v. Kellog Brown & Root Ltd & Anor [2005] ScotSC 87 (22 December 2005)

The first defenders (employer) were not liable under the 1998 Regulations for the door closer, as it was not equipment provided by them but by a third party (the second defenders), and they had no control over it. The second defenders, as owners/operators with control over the equipment, could be liable under the Regulations, and the pursuer's pleadings were sufficiently clear to allow proof against them.

Citation
[2005] ScotSC 87
Parties
Pursuer: Peter Spencer-Franks; First Defenders: Kellog, Brown & Root Limited; Second Defenders: Talisman Energy (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/reparation / Interlocutory Decision on Relevancy and Dismissal/allowance of Proof
Outcome
Action dismissed against first defenders; proof allowed against second defenders.
Legal Topics
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Employer's Liability, Statutory Interpretation, Control of Work Equipment, Personal Injury at Work
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Tort/delict Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 Employer's Liability Statutory Interpretation Control of Work Equipment Personal Injury at Work

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Spencer-Franks

Pursuer

Kellog, Brown & Root Limited

First Defenders

Talisman Energy (UK) Limited

Second Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/reparation / Interlocutory Decision on Relevancy and Dismissal/allowance of Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the door closer constituted 'work equipment' under the 1998 Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the employer (first defenders) or the owner/operator (second defenders) owed statutory duties under the Regulations in respect of the door closer
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's pleadings gave fair notice of the circumstances of the accident

Ratio Decidendi

The first defenders (employer) were not liable under the 1998 Regulations for the door closer, as it was not equipment provided by them but by a third party (the second defenders), and they had no control over it. The second defenders, as owners/operators with control over the equipment, could be liable under the Regulations, and the pursuer's pleadings were sufficiently clear to allow proof against them.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed against first defenders; proof allowed against second defenders.

Orders

  • Sustains the first defenders' first plea-in-law and dismisses the action so far as directed against the first defenders.
  • Repels the second defenders' first and second pleas-in-law, allows the pursuer a proof of his averments against the second defenders.