WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales

References to and/or interpretations of Health and Safety Regulations - Barlow - v - Churchill China (UK) Ltd

Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
	Contextual Commentary | Barlow - v - Churchill China (UK) Ltd | Find Other Cases

In paragraph 2 of his Judgment on the 16th December 2004, Mr Recorder Rafferty says:

As set out in Amended Particulars of Claim dated 20 May 2004, it is asserted by Mrs. Barlow that she has suffered continuing injury to her non-dominant right wrist and forearm in breach of the duty of care owed to her at common law by the defendant or, in the alternative, the duties imposed by the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992.

In paragraph 107 of his Judgment, Mr Recorder Rafferty says:

Taking a due account of all of the evidence in the case I conclude therefore that, upon a balance of probabilities, the injury suffered by the claimant was occasioned by her employment and further, that the risk of such a significant injury was a reasonably foreseeable event. The omissions by the defendant to recognise that such a risk existed or at the very least, to fully appreciate the extent to which it did so, to take such steps as were appropriate and reasonable either to provide the claimant with a safe system of working and to be constantly alert to the requirement to minimise the dangers of that risk, amount in my judgement to negligence founding such breaches as have been pleaded of the duties imposed by regulation 4(1) of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 and further and in any event, the duty of care at common law.

V1.01

Last updated: 14/05/2013