0370 270 6000

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

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