0370 270 6000

Casey v Morane Ltd, Court of Appeal, 5 May 2000

16 May 2000
The facts

The Claimant was injured at work in 1994 when he lost a finger in machinery. Three months later he was subject to a disciplinary hearing at which he was found guilty of gross misconduct and emoted suffering £5,000.00 loss of income. In 1996 he brought proceedings in negligence and breach of statutory duty. In 1998 the liability issue was settled by consent with 85% liability on the employer and 15% liability on the employee. As part of his claim for damages he sought to recover the loss of earnings which is demotion as a result of the diclipinary proceedings which cost him. He was awarded £119,000.00 taking into account the Claimant’s 15% contributory negligence liability. The Defendant appealed on the grounds that it was the demotion and not the accident which caused the loss of earnings.

The decision

1. The result of the dislipinary proceedings were inconsistent with the apportionment of responsibility now agreed and binding on the Court.

2. As a matter of fact there would have been no demotion and loss of pay had the apportionment now acknowledged as correct been understood and accepted then.

3. The issue was whether the actual demotion and loss of pay was attributable to the breach of duty which led to the accident.

4. Where a number of factors combine to lead to a situation where a Claimant incurred loss it might become appropriate to select the “predominant” or “effective” cause of the Claimant being dicliplined and losing pay.

5. On the facts the Claimant’s loss of status and pay failed to be regarded as caused by the accident and by the combined fault of both parties although predominantly the Defendant’s fault leading to the accident. Disclipinary sanction and financial loss was in the nature of an additional peril or disadvantage arising from the accident.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.

View

Blogs

Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.

View

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.

View

Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.

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