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

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll