House v Haughton Brothers (Worcester) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DANCKWERTS |
| Judgment Date | 18 November 1966 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1966] EWCA Civ J1118-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 18 November 1966 |
[1966] EWCA Civ J1118-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From Mr. Commissioner Norman Richard, Q.C.
Lord Justice Danckwerts and
Lord Justice Winn
THE APPELLANT appeared in person.
MR E, B, GIBBENS, Q. C. and MR 0. B. POPPLEWELL (instructed by Messrs Kingsley Wood & Co., Agents for Messrs Duggaa, Elton & James, Birmingham) appeared as Counsel for the Respondents.
LORD JUSTICE DANCKWRRTS: I will ask Lord Justice Winn to deliver the first judgment.
LORD JUSTICE WINN I the Court have come to the conclusion that there should be an order for a new trial in this case. That being so, it is manifestly undesirable to say more than the essential minimum about the facts and about the evidence which was given in this case.
The plaintiff suffered injuries by falling through the floor of a building. He was engaged at the time in the employment of the defendant firm in removing, inter alias, at the exact time when his accident happened, rotten floorboards in order that he might lay a fresh floor The boards gave way, or one board gave way, or he suffered a slip as the result of the one scaffold board on which he was then resting his weight across the joists of the floor tipping and letting him down through the floor. He was not using more than one board. The issue, so far as any live issue survived at the trial among those which, having been raised on the pleadings, clearly could not stand up on the evidence, was whether or not the defendants had, in accordance with their duty under Regulation 7(2) of the Construction (General Provisions) Regulations as they were in force at the relevant time, provided him with means of support, other than a ladder, suitable and sufficient for the purpose when he could not safely work from the ground or from any permanent structure. The defendants agreed that three boards would be the proper requirement for providing a working platform in these conditions; I refer to page 42 D, E and. Of the transcript. The Court thinks that that is clearly right.
The issue, therefore, was had the defendants providence three sofa fold boards or had they failed to do so? The plaintiff said they had not provided any but that one himself from the firm's yard. Witnesses were called by the plaintiff, including a man called Webster and aman called Nicholls, and we are told and of course accept it. That a man called Morgan, who was the Cathedral gardener, was also available as a witness in court. Those witnesses said nothing about any provision of scaffold board having been made in the interval of time between the occurrence of the plaintiff's accident, which was roundabout noon on one day, and caused him to be taken to and detained in hospital, and the arrival of the factory inspector, which was some 24 hours later They were not asked any questions to lead their evidence to any such matter. They gave their evidence on other questions, and it is right to take note of Mr. Gibbons' correct submission that one of them, Webster, was clearly not believed or his evidence was not accepted by the learned Judge on an issue of fact not only was there no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Flint v Eastern Electricity Board
-
Williams v Reason (Note)
...by proving that reasonable diligence could not have disclosed the existence of the proposed witness, or in rare cases like House v. Haughton Brothers (Worcester) Ltd., (1967) 1 Weekly Law Reports 148, of the particular piece of evidence which the appellant asks leave to adduce. In this cas......
-
Navitaire Inc. v Easyjet Airline Company and Another
...previously said, then it cannot be said that it could be obtained with the exercise of reasonable diligence. He relies on House v Haughton Brothers (Worcester) Ltd [1967] 1 All ER 39, a decision of Danckwerts and Winn LJJ. This case was relied on as authority for the proposition that if so......
-
Bernard Connolly (Respondent (Plaintiff) v Tesco Stores Ltd (Appellant
...attention to passages in two cases bearing on the meaning of the phrase "apparently credible" in this context. They were House v. Haughton Brothers (Worcester) Ltd. [1967] 1 W.L.R. 148 and Bills v. Rose & Anr. [1968] 1 W.L.R. 925. In the former case, at page 154, Winn L.J. said: "…I have ......