header-logo header-logo

Liability: no laughing matter?

26 November 2020 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7912 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail
32943
Whose liability is it when a workplace prank goes badly wrong? Charles Pigott investigates
  • Chell v Tarmac Cement Limited: an employer was not liable for injuries caused by a workplace prank.
  • Trial judge’s decision: the close connection test.
  • The appeal: degrees of tension.

In Chell v Tarmac Cement Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, [2020] All ER (D) 21 (Oct) the High Court has dismissed an appeal against a county court ruling that an employer was not liable for injuries caused by a workplace prank.

The claimant was a fitter employed by Roltech Engineering, working alongside Tarmac’s own employees. One of these deliberately caused a loud explosion next to Mr Chell’s ear, by hitting two pellet targets with a hammer. The targets were not workplace equipment. Although there was no deliberate attempt to injure Mr Chell, he suffered significant damage to his hearing.

There was evidence of a degree of ill-feeling between Tarmac’s employed fitters and those supplied by Roltech, but it was not considered that the Roltech fitters had

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll