[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Alsop v Sheffield City Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1281 (17 July 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1281.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1281

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE SHEFFIELD COUNTY COURT
(Miss Recorder Godfrey QC)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 17th July 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE HENRY: When the local authority in this case came to set out their Safe Working Code of Practice they included, at paragraph 15, the following instruction to their refuse operatives: "In areas of steep grass verges you should seek access paths, steps etc wherever possible."
2. The oral evidence in relation to the grass verges was that they were gentle inclines, or words to that effect. In relation to the concrete verges, on one of which this appellant fell, it looks as though they were steeper than the grass verges, but there was no similar qualification in relation to them.
3. Mr Newbon draws my attention to the fact that the way the Council's case was run, and the basis of the cross-examination of the men, was that what this claimant was doing (namely, tugging the wheelie bin up the slope) was not the right way to do it (page 11 of the transcript); that no one in their right mind would do it that way (page 12); and (again at page 12) that the man in question was taking a wholly unnecessary risk by performing the task in that way. Against that, there was the evidence of the men, saying that they were working against time; that they always did things in this way; that they had never been told off for doing it in this way, and that that was the way they did it.
4. The recorder in her summing up in no way deals with this contradiction between the way the Council put their case through their advocate in cross-examination and her findings, namely that there was only a very low risk of injury by an experienced man who could be expected to evaluate the situation and take those bins up the steps or round the side. There was, in other words, a mismatch between the way the Council put the case and the way the judge eventually dealt with it in her summing up. It may be significant that the Council called no evidence, particularly if the burden of proof is on them under the Manual Handling Operations Directive.
5. In order that that can be explored, I am persuaded (contrary to my first impression) that it would be right to grant permission to appeal in this case and accordingly I do so.
Order: application for permission to appeal granted; costs reserved.