QuestGates-owned QGLaw have successfully defended a multi-track employer’s liability personal injury claim, resulting in a saving of more than £200,000 for insurers.
QGLaw has obtained judgment for the defendant in a multi-track employer’s liability claim, with the claim dismissed and permission to appeal refused. The indemnity spend saving for insurers exceeded £200,000.
The central issue was whether the claimant was employed by the defendant (his wife) so as to give rise to the duties ordinarily owed by an employer, including those arising under the relevant workplace regulations and at common law in negligence.
Background
The defendant carried on business as a sole trader operating a village store. The claimant was independently self-employed. He assisted in the running of the store and performed maintenance tasks. While cleaning an external air-conditioning unit he fell from an A-frame ladder and sustained significant injuries to his wrist and elbow. He admitted consuming alcohol before the accident.
The claimant alleged that he was employed by the defendant and that she had breached statutory workplace duties and a common law duty of care.
Defence
Liability was denied throughout. It was contended that there was no contract of employment, no relationship of master and servant, and no duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant. The arrangement between them was marital, not one of employer and employee.
Findings
The court found for the defendant. The judge held that the claimant was not employed by the defendant. The working relationship was founded on marriage rather than a genuine contract of employment. In the absence of that relationship, no duty of care was owed.
The court further held that, even if a duty had been established, causation was broken.
On the claimant’s own evidence he shifted his weight while at the top of the ladder. That act, the judge found, was the cause of the fall. The claim was dismissed. Permission to appeal was refused.
Comment
The decision turns on orthodox principles of employment status and duty. Assistance given by one spouse in the other’s sole-trader business does not, without more, create a contract of employment or the incidence of an employer/employee relationship. Where employment is not proved, the statutory and common law duties relied upon in a typical EL claim do not arise.
The alternative finding on causation is of equal practical importance: an admitted, voluntary movement by the claimant at height was held to be the effective cause of the accident, interrupting any chain that might otherwise have been alleged.
The result illustrates the benefit of early and consistent analysis of employment status and duty in claims that present, on their face, as workplace accidents but rest on an informal family arrangement rather than a true contract of service.
The matter was conducted by Andrew Millen, Partner at QGLaw, who was instructed by Darren Hewer, Technical Claims Manager at QuestGates. Kim Wilson of 3PB Chambers appeared at trial.