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 any

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

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll