header-logo header-logo

30 May 2013
Issue: 7562 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Personal injury—Workplace injury—Liability

Hide v The Steeplechase Co (Cheltenham) Ltd and others [2013] EWCA Civ 545

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Longmore, McFarlane & Davis LJJ, 22 May 2013

Reg 4 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/2306) (reg 4) is not to be construed in accordance with the common law concept of reasonable foreseeability.

Christopher Sharp QC and Anna Symington (instructed by Withy King Solicitors) for the claimant. Peter Cowan (instructed by DWF) for the defendants.

The claimant was an experienced professional jockey. In November 2006 he was competing at Cheltenham Racecourse. A guard rail about four feet high ran around the outside of the track, primarily to contain loose horses. The rails were secured into the ground by upright posts on top of metal spigots. The posts were padded for 20 to 25 yards following each hurdle. During the race the claimant jumped over one hurdle and the horse stumbled and fell. The claimant hit one of the guard rail upright posts. He brought an action against the

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

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