Campbell v. East Renfrewshire Council [2004] ScotCS 81 (31 March 2004)

Campbell v. East Renfrewshire Council [2004] ScotCS 81 (31 March 2004)

The embankment was not a 'floor' within the meaning of Regulation 12 as it was an unconstructed, natural surface, and Regulation 13 did not apply because the pursuer did not fall from one surface to another at a lower level but rolled down the same surface. Therefore, the statutory case was irrelevant and could not proceed to proof.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 81
Parties
Pursuer: Raymond Campbell; Defenders: East Renfrewshire Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action (damages for Personal Injuries) / Procedure Roll (plea to Relevancy of Statutory Case)
Outcome
Statutory case dismissed (plea to relevancy sustained in part)
Legal Topics
Workplace Safety, Statutory Interpretation, Breach of Statutory Duty, Common Law Negligence
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Personal Injury Workplace Safety Statutory Interpretation Breach of Statutory Duty Common Law Negligence

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond Campbell

Pursuer

East Renfrewshire Council

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Action (damages for Personal Injuries) / Procedure Roll (plea to Relevancy of Statutory Case)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an outdoor embankment constitutes a 'floor' under Regulation 12 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
  2. 2 Whether Regulation 13 of the same Regulations applies to a fall occurring on an embankment

Ratio Decidendi

The embankment was not a 'floor' within the meaning of Regulation 12 as it was an unconstructed, natural surface, and Regulation 13 did not apply because the pursuer did not fall from one surface to another at a lower level but rolled down the same surface. Therefore, the statutory case was irrelevant and could not proceed to proof.

Court Disposition

Statutory case dismissed (plea to relevancy sustained in part)

Orders

  • Averments in condescendence 4 (statutory case) deleted; statutory case withheld from probation.