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?

Bull & Ors v Nottinghamshire & City of Nottingham Fire Rescue Authority, Court of Appeal, 28 February 2007

22 March 2007
The issues

Fire fighters – contractual duties – fire brigade – whether co-responding part of an employees contractual duties.

The facts

The Fire Authorities had sought to ask fire fighters, as part of their ordinary duties, to administer first aid and basic medical intervention when attending emergencies and in situations where ambulance crews could not attend promptly. Declarations had been made in favour of the fire fighters that these duties (“co-responding duties”) did not form part of their contractual duties. The Fire Authorities appealed against those declarations seeking declarations to the contrary.

The decision

The Judge had found that the co-responding duties were beyond the scope of a fire fighter’s contractual obligations and in so doing called in support the fact that the Grey Book, which was incorporated into the contracts of employment, made no specific mention of co-responding duties. The Judge had been correct. The Grey Book, which set out in detail a fire fighter’s duties, had been amended following a pay dispute, which was settled some 3 years before. The Grey Book, as amended, repeated the terms of the settlement of the dispute and was important in construing the contract of employment. The Fire Brigade Union had always opposed the concept of co-responding and in the settlement of the pay dispute no concessions were made in that regard. The co-responding duties were so different from what common sense would hold that fire fighters were expected to do, that it could only be the case that such duties could be imposed expressly and not by influence.

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