Does anyone have any further info on this case which appears to have been decided in a different direction to others recently in relation to the client duty of care for contractors? http://www.bbc.co.uk/new...-england-sussex-26119290 I would seem the NT checks on contractor competence were deficient (he didn't have some (unspecified) 'certification') yet they were held not liable for his injuries... I'd be interested in any details if such may be available? Steve

Thanks for telling us where that judgement is Pete. Very interesting reading with a range of different points that the Judge appears to have addressed well. Steve - why the NT were not considered liable in this event is very well explained by the Judge. But, to paraphrase [and lay myself open being eaten by crows]:- This is Civil law and the Tort of Negligence; not HSWA Criminal law. The manner of engagement of the Tree Specialist by NT was considered to be acceptable and therefore NT had no liability in this particular case. Although it doesn't say so in the judgement; I consider that quite simply the Claimant chose the wrong Defendant to pursue for justifiable compensation. I'm sure others will have their own views! Frank Hallett

Taking account of the Forum Rules I think we need to very careful if we consider discussing the liabilities of anyone other than NT.

Frank, Entirely agree with your comments and that you rightly draw attention to the fact that this is a civil case. You stated "Although it doesn't say so in the judgement; I consider that quite simply the Claimant chose the wrong Defendant to pursue for justifiable compensation." The claimant had no choice - at para 58 is is stated that the "contractor" did not have suitable and sufficient Public Liability for those that he employed (as self employed persons?) and did not hold Employers' Liability insurance. Thus, in an attmept to obtain some compensation it was necessary to sue the National Trust. As a case study it would be interesting to consider what might have happened if the branch cut off by the claimant in this case had hit a visitor to the property. The injured person might have sued: - the worker - who held no insurance - the contractor (insured for his own work but not that of anyone else) - the NT (who are insured) I wonder what the outcome might have been - possibly that the NT would have been deemed liable. Phil

I thought it stated early on in the judgement that LB of Merton issued summons but then did not proceed with the prosecution. No further details provided - clearly was an investigation by Merton at the very least.

PLI is not a legal requiremnt

Just a quick note to advise that Employers' Liability Insurance is enforced by HSE regardless of the Health and Safety enforcing authority. LA EHOs cannot enforce this legislation.

Frank, You stated as follows: "I do not believe that the lack of appropriate ELI or PLI is a legal bar to bringing a claim. Insurance, whether it is held or not, does not define whther a claim may be brought;" I entirely agree however, in the absencee of insurance it is the generally held view that pursuing a claim is pretty pointless. In that sense the presence or otherwise of insurance does influence the decisiosn regarding whether to claim AND who to claim against. Others have clarified the position re the legal requirement to take out EL insurance and the fact that Public Liability insurance is not a legal requirement and thus not (legally) enforced by a body/agency or similar. However, it could be said that "employers" - in the contractual sense - enforce by making it a part of pre-contract discussions, requiring proof of suitable insurance etc. Phil

Another situation arose some years ago (in Scotland I think?) when a little girl was stabbed in the eye with a paint brush during an art lesson in school. The incident was not foreseeable (said the judge) but still awarded substantial damages against the Educational department of the LA. The judge said someone had to pay (£2.5m) for the care the little girl would need for the rest of her life as she had suffered a degree of brain damage as well as losing her sight in one eye. Rich

It is seemingly all to easy for "clients" in the sense of those that employ contractors to get caught up in the aftermath of an accident involving an employee of their contractor or even their Main contractor's sub-contractors. These two press releases about recent decisons were published on consecutive days: http://press.hse.gov.uk/...fall-through-roof-light/ http://press.hse.gov.uk/...lease&cr=31-Jan-2014 And I would imagine that the EL insurer of the two clients will now face greater difficulties in defending their clients. Phil