Safer but not negligent not to mandate its use
In Nicholls v Ladbrokes  EWCA Civ 1963, a majority decision handed down on 11 July, Ladbrokes overturned an award of damages to Kerry Nicholls who had suffered psychiatric injury following a robbery at a betting shop in Walsall.
The original award rested on the decision of the trial judge that it was negligent of Ladbrokes not to have had in place a policy requiring the door to the shop to be kept shut with a magnetic lock during the hours of darkness. The shop in question had a magnetic lock but its use was inconsistent; one manager routinely used it at night while another did not.
The trial judge agreed with the case that the lock should have been used and Jackson LJ, giving the leading judgment in the Court of Appeal agreed and certainly felt that it was a decision the Judge was entitled to reach and so the appeal court should not interfere. Continue reading
Not actually from Guy's and St Thomas's ...
The seminal case (well, I would say that wouldn’t I) and said to be the start of claims for harassment in the workplace as an alternative to the ‘normal’ stress claim.
In practice, clear authority for the proposition that the ordinary principles of vicarious liability apply to tortious claims under the PHA and the source of some highly persuasive opinions about the nature of the conduct required to amount to harassment. Essential reading if contemplating a claim.
What is probably not commonly known is that after winning in the House of Lords, the claim was discontinued as it was evident the conduct being complained about was not sufficiently serious to amount to harassment under the PHA.
A small prize will go the first reader who can tell me how the Claimant’s surname is correctly pronounced.
Majrowski v. Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Trust  UKHL 34