Employment law cases

All items: Health and safety

  • Employers' liability: Hatton guidance must be applied carefully

    Date:
    25 March 2005

    In Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust and other appeals, the Court of Appeal holds that, for a stress at work case to succeed, it must be shown that the injury was not too remote.

  • Health and Safety Executive v Thames Trains Ltd

    Date:
    31 December 2003

    In Health and Safety Executive v Thames Trains Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 720 CA, it was held that there may be circumstances in which the Health and Safety Executive would owe a common law duty of care to the victims of an accident.

  • Sex discrimination: Failure to carry out risk assessment for pregnant woman is discrimination

    Date:
    21 February 2003

    In Hardman v Mallon, t/a Orchard Lodge Nursing Home, the EAT holds that a failure to carry out a risk assessment in respect of a pregnant employee as required by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 amounts to unlawful sex discrimination. This is because carrying out a risk assessment is one of the ways in which a woman's biological condition during and after pregnancy is given special protection.

  • Horton v Taplin Contracts Ltd

    Date:
    31 December 2002

    In Horton v Taplin Contracts Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1604 CA, the Court of Appeal held that it is clear from the wording of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992, regulation 5 that when an employer supplies work equipment it must be suitable in any respect that it is reasonably foreseeable will affect the health or safety of any person. In this case the unlawful actions of the claimant's work colleague were not foreseeable.

  • O'Neill v DSG Retail Ltd

    Date:
    31 December 2002

    In O'Neill v DSG Retail Ltd [2002] All ER (D) 500 (Jul) CA, the Court of Appeal held that as soon as an employer has identified, as a control measure, the need to provide information and training, appropriate steps should be taken to ensure that each and every employee at risk receives that information and training and that appropriate training records are kept.

  • A duty to dismiss for the employee's best interest

    Employers have a duty to protect employees from physical danger, even if the employee wants to continue working. By Linda Farrell, partner Bristows.

  • Employers have duty of care for stress returnees

    The onus is on the employer to ensure workload is appropriate when staff return from sick leave due to stress, rules the Court of Appeal.

  • Employers' liability: Court of Appeal guidelines for stress at work cases

    Date:
    25 March 2002

    In Sutherland v Hatton, the Court of Appeal heard four appeals against county court judgments, related only by their subject matter. In each, a defendant employer appealed against a finding of liability for psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.

  • Green v Yorkshire Traction

    Date:
    31 December 2001

    In Green v Yorkshire Traction [2001] EWCA Civ 1925 CA, the Court of Appeal held that, although the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992, regulation 6(1) creates an absolute duty of care, the words 'maintained in an efficient state' must be given their ordinary meaning when determining whether there has been a breach of duty.

  • Display screen equipment: Directive applied to film cutter's workstations

    Date:
    15 March 2001

    In Dietrich v Westdeutscher Rundfunk, the European Court of Justice ("the ECJ") rules that, for the purposes of the EC Display Screen Equipment Directive, the term "graphic display screen" must be interpreted as including screens that display film recordings in analogue or digital form.

About this category

Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to health and safety.