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

Doherty & Others v Rugby Joinery (UK) Ltd, Court of Appeal, 17 February 2004

24 February 2004
The issues

VWF – Vibration Induced White Finger – date of knowledge – duty to assess and monitor.

The facts

Eight Appellants appealed against the dismissal of their claims against the Respondent. All were women who had been employed for different periods between 1970 and 1999 in the Defendant’s two factories in Doncaster where doors and windows were manufactured. Each suffered from Vibration Induced White Finger and each claimed that their VWF was the result of the Defendant’s negligence. In the course of their work, they worked at different stages of the production process, using a variety of hand held vibratory tools such as nail guns, electric drills and screw drivers but usually only for a few seconds at a time. They also used an orbital sander for making wood smooth and which of all the tools used by the Appellants produced a surprisingly high level of vibration in the hand. The Judge found in general that the Claimants had exaggerated the amount of their use of the vibratory tools but that the Appellants had suffered VWF, which had been contracted in the course of their employment with the Respondent. It was agreed that at no time prior to the closure of the factories did the Defendants have actual knowledge that any of the tools used carried a risk of VWF. The issue was whether it had constructed knowledge. The Judge found that the duty to assess the vibratory tools used and monitor employees for symptoms of VWF arose only in 1991/1992.

The Claimant appealed.

The decision

1. The Judge was entitled to conclude on the basis of the expert evidence that neither the 1975 British Standards Institution Draft for Development nor the 1987 British Standards Guide was by itself and in the absence of complaint of symptoms by its employees, a sufficient trigger for either duty for which the Claimant argued.

2. (Lady Justice Hale) This case did not decide that the date of knowledge of the risk of VWF from the woodworking industry was as late as 1991/1992. It merely holds that these particular employers were not in breach of their common law duty of care towards these particular employees failing to monitor them for symptoms of VWF until that date. Four Appeals dismissed, four remitted to the Judge for assessment of damages.

focus on...

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

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.

View

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.

View

Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.

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