0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Pledger v Martin

28 April 2000
The issues

Construction Working Places Regulations 1966 – Request for Clarification – Amendment at Trial

The facts

The Claimant suffered an accident at work when he fell from the top of an asbestos roof. He alleged that no working platform was provided for him. Three breaches of the CWPR 1966 were pleaded. The Defendant’s case was that a platform had been provided. The Defendant requested clarification of the allegations the Claimant might make if a platform had been used. The Claimant maintained his claim that no platform was provided. At Trial the Claimant relied on the alternative case that if the Judge found there was a working platform that it breached various safety regulations. This was not pleaded. The Claimant argued that as Defendant contended a platform was used and that it complied with the regulations, he was entitled to challenge this and establish breaches. The Defendant objected and the Judge agreed holding that it behoved the Claimant to have pleaded this aspect of the case if he wished to rely on it. Leave to amend applied for by the Claimant.

The decision

Claimant’s application refused. The proposed amendment raised a new cause of action which did not arise out of substantially the same facts of the existing claim. An amendment would require an adjournment and expert evidence. The Claimant was legally aided. The Defendant was unlikely to recoup its costs of the adjournment. In all the circumstances and particularly that the Claimant himself was always maintain that there was no platform, the Judge would not exercise his discretion under Section 33 of the Limitation Act to rely on new cause to be pleaded. Quoting with approval Jeffery Lane J as he then was in Waghorn v George Wimpey & Co Limited [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1764 “one must test the Plaintiff’s submissions in this way; if these allegations had been made upon the pleadings in the first place namely allegations based on the facts they have now emerged, with the Defendant’s preparation of the case and conduct of the trial, have been any different?”

focus on...

Legal updates

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.

View

Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.

View

Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up