0370 270 6000

Tasci v Pekalp of London Limited

1 February 2001
The issues

Woodworking Machine Regulations – Training – Necessity to Explain

The facts

The Claimant suffered injury to his left dominant hand whilst operating a circular saw machine and brought proceedings for personal injuries. The Claimant was Kurdish with limited English of which fact the Defendants were aware. It was probable that the Claimant who was anxious to obtain employment had no doubt been economical with the truth about his previous experience.

The decision

A prudent employer would have known not to place reliance on what he said and would have treated him as a total novice. The duty to train an employee in the use of a woodworking machine as set out in Regulation 13 of the Woodworking Machine Regulations not only involve giving a comprehensive explanation in ordinary language of the dangers involved but also involve some appraisal as to whether the employee understood those instructions “particularly where the employee was a refugee”.

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.



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.


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.


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