header-logo header-logo

26 November 2020 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7912 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Liability: no laughing matter?

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 any reason to fear for their physical safety on site.

Trial

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll