Wigley v British Vinegars Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Viscount Kilmuir,Lord Hodson,Lord Morton of Henryton,Lord Macdermott: |
| Judgment Date | 16 July 1962 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1962] UKHL J0716-1 |
| Date | 16 July 1962 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1962] UKHL J0716-1
House of Lords
Viscount Kilmuir
Lord Jenkins
Lord Hodson
Lord Pearce
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Wigley (Widow) (suing as Administratrix of the Estate of Francis Edwin Wigley, deceased) (A.P.) against British Vinegars Limited, that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Monday the 21st, as on Tuesday the 22d, Wednesday the 23d, Thursday the 24th and Monday the 28th, days of May last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Elsie May Wigley (Widow) (suing as Administratrix of the Estate of Francis Edwin Wigley, deceased), of 4 Pennethorne Road, Peckham, in the County of London, praying. That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 28th of July 1961, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied or altered, and that the Petitioner might have the relief prayed for in the Appeal, or such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the Case of British Vinegars Limited, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 28th day of July 1961, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Costs incurred by the said Appellant in respect of the said Appeal to this House, be taxed in accordance with the provisions of the Third Schedule to the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, as amended by the Legal Aid Act, 1960, the amount of such last-mentioned Costs to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
My Lords,
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the Court of Appeal reversing the judgment in her favour of Atkinson, J., in an action in which she claimed damages against the defendants in respect of the death of her husband. She sued both as dependant under the Fatal Accidents Acts and as administratrix of his estate under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934; the trial judge decided in her favour and awarded her £350 under the Law Reform Act and £4,444 4s. 6d. under the Fatal Accidents Acts. His judgment was set aside by the Court of Appeal and the widow was given leave to appeal to your Lordships' House.
The facts relevant to the questions which have been argued before this House are comparatively simple. The deceased was an experienced window cleaner who met his death in October, 1958, when engaged in cleaning a window in the defendants' premises. It was common ground that those premises constituted a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act, 1937, and that, in relation to the defendants, the deceased was an independent contractor. He had in fact entered into a contract with them some twelve months previously for cleaning windows in their factory and the undisputed evidence was that he had cleaned this particular window about twelve times before the occasion on which he met his death. On that occasion he was working in a room in the factory containing a large vat. To accommodate this vat the original first and second floors of the building had been removed and the window with which your Lordships are concerned was some 30 to 40 feet above the level of the floor on which the vat stood. In order to reach the window from that floor the deceased used a three-piece extension ladder and it was common ground that the ladder itself was soundly built and in no way defective, nor was any criticism made of the place where it had been stood or of the fact that it was in no way secured. In the event, the ladder does not appear to have moved when the deceased fell from it. The window which the deceased was cleaning when he met his death was in two parts, divided vertically. The left-hand half was fixed and immoveable, but the right-hand half pivoted on lugs set on either side so that the top portion could swivel inwards towards the room and the bottom portion outwards. These lugs were rather nearer the top of the window than the bottom so that, if left at rest, it remained closed. There were no means of fastening it in the closed position, although the evidence was that there would have been no particular difficulty in providing bars or bolts for this purpose. Evidence was given by the deceased's nineteen-year old son who was in business with him as a window cleaner and who had himself on previous occasions cleaned this particular window. The practice of the deceased was to wash the window with a wash-leather and then to polish it with a dry cloth. This operation involved putting a certain amount of pressure on the glass: since the cleaning was being done from the inside, so long as that pressure was applied to the upper part of the window it would remain closed, but in order to clean the lower part the deceased had with one hand to put pressure on the upper part while using his other hand to clean the lower part. Since the head of the ladder was placed in the centre between the left- and right-hand portions of the window, this would mean that, while using his right hand to clean the lower part of the right-hand portion, the deceased would have had to bring his left hand across his body and use it to keep pressure on the upper part. Clearly, this would mean that for the time being he would be prevented from using his left hand to hold on to the style of the ladder.
It was while engaged in cleaning the window in this manner that the deceased fell and suffered injuries from which he died. Nobody saw the accident, but after he had fallen his wash-leather was found on the top rung of the ladder which, as I have already said, had not shifted. The deceased's son stated in evidence that the inference he drew from this was that his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McWilliams v Sir William Arrol & Company Ltd
......In the case of ( Drummond v. British Building Cleaners Ltd. [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1434 ) Parker, L.J. (as he then was) at page 1444 adopted ...I therefore agree with Davies, L.J., giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Wigley v. British Vinegars, Ltd. [1961] 3 W.L.R. 1261 , that Roberts v. Dorman Long cannot be ......
- Enmore Estates Ltd v D R Singh
-
Davy v Avonmore Creameries Ltd
...summarised in Shillman - the Factory Legislation of Ireland - at page 62, and, further, on Wigley v. British Vinegars Limited (1964) A.C. 307 cited with approval by Walsh J. in Roche v. P. Kelly and Company Limited (1969) I.R.100 at 34"This Court in Daly v. Greybridge Co-Operative Creamery ......
-
Robinson v Post Office
...are to be found in McWilliams v. Sir William Arroll ft Co. Ltd. (1962 1 Weekly Law Reports 295) and Wigley v. British Vinegars Ltd. (1964 Appeal Cases 307), where employers were found to have been in breach of duty in failing to supply safety belts to, in the first case a steel erector and ......