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

Forgotten your password?

Koonjul v Thames Link Healthcare Services NHS Trust, Court of Appeal

26 May 2000
The issues

Residential Home – level of risk

The facts

The Claimant worked as a Care Assistant at the Rainbow Lodge, Dartford a small residential home for children and sustained a back injury when making an unusually low bed. The issue arose as to precise evaluation of the level of risk involved in carrying out a number of everyday manual handling operations with precise warnings to each employee and as to what extent this was impracticable.

The decision

(i) To bring the case within Regulation 4 there had to be a real risk – a foreseeable possibility of injury and certainly nothing approaching a probability.

(ii) Making such an assessment the employer was not entitled to assume that all employers would on all occasions behave with care for their own safety.

(iii) The purpose of the Regulation was to place on employers an obligation to look after their employees safely which they might not otherwise have;

(iv) There had to be an element of realism however.

(v) This case involved a small residential home with a small number of employees carrying out everyday tasks and a particular employee who had been carrying out such tasks for a long time. The employer in assessing the risks was entitled to take that into account.

(vi) It was arguable that the act of bending down to pull away a bed from a wall involved an element of risk.

(vii) That the obligation was to reduce risk to the lowest level reasonably practicable. This particular employees work involved a number of particular tasks, any one of which could be described as manual handling – lifting bedding moving beds around, moving chests of drawers and moving chairs. The idea of the level of risk involved (very low) should be met by a precise evaluation of each of those tasks and precise warnings to each employee as to how each was to be carried out was beyond the realms of practicability.


See also Rowe -v- Swansea City at April CL480

Focus on...

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.


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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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