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

Wallis v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance, Court of Appeal

21 January 2003
The issues

Traffic routes – Work Place (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 – slip –
fall – Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992.

The facts

The Claimant was an experienced Track Manager, whose duties involved, amongst other things, track inspection and maintenance. He had a team of men who worked to his direction and he was responsible for health and safety in respect of that team. In March 1997, he was called to attend to work on a track. The nearest access gate was locked and secured by a padlock. The Claimant did not have a key. He phoned the Control Office, which told him to find a way onto the line via the quickest alternative route. He decided to climb over a high-spiked fence and did so successfully. He carried out the work and returned the same way. As he did so, he slipped and fell injuring his back. The Claimant said that he had taken a calculated risk to get the job done and relied on the fact that Balfour was subject to penalties if trains were delayed. He relied on negligence and PUWER 1992 and the Work Place Regulations 1992. The Judge found as a fact that there had not been previous problems with locks on access gates and it was not reasonably foreseeable to the Defendant that there would be a problem on this occasion. The Judge found further that the route taken over the fence was not a suitable alternative route, since it was clearly dangerous and due note was taken of the fact that the Claimant was experienced and responsible for health and safety issues. The Judge found that there was a breach of the Workplace Regulations 17(ii) but that that breach was not causative. He further rejected the Defendant’s argument that the Claimant had an alternative access route via London Underground, which involved crossing live rails. He accepted the Claimant’s argument that this was not a reasonable thing to expect. He found however that the Claimant should, on discovering that he had no reasonable access, have telephoned for further instructions before doing anything further.

The decision

1. The Judge’s finding that there was a breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations was wrong. The key that the Claimant had was a key which opened standard locks on gates. The lock on the gate in question was not such a lock. It could not be said that the key was unsuitable for the purpose for which it was supplied.

2. There was a breach of Regulation 17 (ii) of the Workplace Regulations, since the access gate was a traffic route and was blocked because it could not be unlocked.

3. Despite that, the Judge was right to find that it was not the locked gate that caused the accident, but the Claimant’s decision to climb over the fence. The Claimant was an experienced employee responsible for health and safety. The sole cause of his accident was his decision to take a hazardous route.

Appeal dismissed.


For further information please contact Catherine Brown at 12 Kings Bench Walk on brown@12kbw.co.uk.

focus on...

Legal updates

Insurance annual review 2019-2020

Welcome to our review of 2019 as we look ahead to what is on the horizon for the insurance sector in 2020.


Legal updates

Financial Services – ‘Duty of Care’ Bill: consumer protection or damp squib?

The Financial Services Duty of Care Bill (the “Bill”) was introduced into the House of Lords in October 2019 and had its second reading on 9 January 2020.


Legal updates

Noise-induced hearing loss claims – documentation and the expert engineer

Guest writer, Finch Consulting Senior Consultant Teli Chinelis applies his expertise in preparing engineering reports in relation to noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) claims to explain information that is required from the claimant and information that is required and is advisable to be retained by employers, in order to ensure that claims can be fairly represented.


Legal updates

SRA Standards and Regulations November 2019

On Monday 25 November the 2011 SRA Handbook is replaced by the 2019 SRA Standards and Regulations (often referred to as STARS).This is the 26th version of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors.


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