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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll