site stats

Knowles v liverpool city council 1993

WebJul 9, 2024 · Knowles v Liverpool City Council (1993) K was injured at work when he handled a flagstone which broke. He claimed compensation from his employers. The Court of Appeal ruled that a flagstone counted as equipment for the purposes of the 1969 Act and the employer was liable. The court preferred the broader interpretation of the wording of …

Health and safety: Equipment cases - FrederickPl Chambers

WebKnowles-v-Liverpool City Council [1993] 4 All ER 321, HL · The House of Lords has held that every article of whatever kind furnished by the employer to the employee for the purposes of his business was equipment. · So in this case, a flagstone counted as equipment. Employers Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 s 1(1) ... WebJun 29, 1992 · This is an appeal by the Liverpool City Council ("the council") from a judgment of Mr. Recorder Briggs delivered on 30th May 1991, in the Liverpool County … bucket\u0027s vr https://billymacgill.com

Statutory Interpretation - 1109 Words Bartleby

WebLoading application... ... Knowles v Liverpool County Council [1993] 1 WLR 1428 Employer’s liability; whether flagstone equipment under Employer’s Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969. Facts Mr Knowles was employed by Liverpool City Council as a labourer. In the course of his employment he was laying a flagstone in a Liverpool … See more Mr Knowles was employed by Liverpool City Council as a labourer. In the course of his employment he was laying a flagstone in a Liverpool street. Whilst … See more S1(1) of the Employer’s Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 provides that if an employee is injured in the course of his employment as a result of a defect in … See more The House of Lords dismissed the Council’s appeal. The purpose of the Act was to protect employees who are injured by exposure to dangerous materials in the … See more WebKnowles v Liverpool City Council defective paving slab broke while K was laying it, he was injured Employer's Liability (Defective equipment) Act 1969 extends to materials used at work. 1993. Latimer v AEC Ltd flash flood left greasy film on floor discharge of duty to take reasonable care. 1953. bucket\\u0027s vr

Statutory Interpretations Flashcards by Joe Taylor Brainscape

Category:2. Personal Liability - Common Law Duty Of Care Flashcards Preview

Tags:Knowles v liverpool city council 1993

Knowles v liverpool city council 1993

Eurovision Song Contest 2024 – Wikipedia

WebKnowles v Liverpool city council 1993 adequate equipment Handling flagstone injury resulting from 3rd party manufacturers failure to have cured the stone properly … WebIncludes** : a lagstone: Knowles v Liverpool City Council (1993) HL and a ship : Coltman v Bibby Tankers Ltd (1988) Download Save. 13. Employers Liability – Duty of C ar e. D U T Y O F C A R E-Employ ers c an be liable f or a number of diff ere nt things, neglig ence is one of the w ay s that w e are g oing to .

Knowles v liverpool city council 1993

Did you know?

WebSep 1, 1993 · Knowles v Liverpool City Council, GEOFF HOLGATE, Employer's Liability and the Provision of Defective “Equipment”, Industrial Law Journal, Volume 22, Issue 3, … WebKNOWLES v LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL (APPELLANTS) [1993] IRLR 588 The House of Lords had to consider whether a flagstone was ‘equipment’ within the scope of the …

WebStudy 2. Personal Liability - Common Law Duty Of Care flashcards from Hannah Bleach's class online, or in Brainscape's iPhone or Android app. Learn faster with spaced repetition. WebKnowles v Liverpool County Council (1993) This case provides a definition for what constitutes "equipment" in the workplace, and extends the Employers' Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 to cover materials used at work. The case ended up in the House of Lords, where the law lords held that equipment

WebThe council appealed on the grounds that a flagstone was not equipment. The appeal was dismissed, and the council appealed Knowles v Liverpool City Council [1993] 1 WLR 1428 … Web*Knowles v Liverpool City Council [1993] 1 WLR 1428. Strategic Guidance. If you’re pushed for time - and you probably will be - leave out B and stick to the textbook on C - But do make sure that you eventually cover them. Heading A deals with a topic which is popular with examiners. It is being lectured on by Mr Matthews.

WebParis v Stepney Borough Council 1951. Higher duty of care owed to vulnerable employees. Vicarious liability of employer for acts of employee. Rose v Plenty 1976. Reasonableness in relation to harm from stress at work. Sutherland v Hatton 2002. Employer duty to protect employees from known and foreseeable danger.

WebPlatt v Liverpool City Council. 1997. Ready Mixed Concrete v Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. ... Knowles v Liverpool City Council. 1993. Latimer v AEC. 1953. Gray v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd. ... 1993. John v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd. 1996. Kiam v MGN Ltd. 2002. Heil v Rankin. bucket\\u0027s zWebNov 3, 1998 · Argued: November 03, 1998 Decided: December 08, 1998. An Iowa policeman stopped petitioner Knowles for speeding and issued him a citation rather than arresting … bucket\\u0027s xjWebSep 21, 2024 · Gazette 26-Aug-1992, 90 LGR 595, (1992) 136 SJLB 220, [1993] ICR 21, [1993] ... Appeal From – Knowles v Liverpool City Council HL 15-Oct-1993 A flagstone being laid by a council employee was held to be ‘equipment provided by his employer for the purposes of the employer’s business’ under the 1969 Act. An employer is liable for the ... bucket\\u0027s zf