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?

Coates v Jaguar Cars Limited, Court of Appeal, 4 March 2004

11 March 2004
The issues

Trip – steps – handrail – Work Place (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 Regulation 12(5).

The facts

The Claimant who was employed by the Defendant, tripped as he was going up a flight of steps at the Defendant’s factory. The flight consisted of four steps and the Claimant tripped on the third. The Judge at first instance found the Defendant negligent in failing to provide a handrail. Had the Defendant considered the risk that risk would have been safeguarded against by the provision of a handrail. However, the Defendant was not found in breach of Regulation 12, on the basis that the steps did not amount to a “staircase”. The Defendant appealed and the Claimant appealed the finding in respect of Regulation 12.

The decision

1. The effect of the Judge’s ruling was that no steps of this sort (which were common place) could be said to be safe unless a handrail was provided. There was no evidence that the steps posed any particular risk if they were ascended or descended with a normal degree of care. There had been a wrongful equation by the Judge of foreseeability of risk with the finding of duty to install a rail.

2. As to the Claimant’s argument that the fell steps within Regulation 5 (Maintenance of Equipment that had been Installed) was dismissed on the basis that since there had been no obligation under Regulation 12 (the Judge’s finding in that regard being unchallenged) to have installed a handrail, Regulation 5 did not apply.

Appeal allowed; Cross Appeal dismissed.

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