Charles v Cardiff County Council

Failure to install a security chain at a workplace door is not, without more, a breach of the employer’s duty of care or applicable workplace safety duties. The question is fact-sensitive. Relevant considerations include the history of the system, the likelihood and nature of the risk, staff training, and the availability of alternative precautions. A claimant must also prove that the proposed precaution would have been used and would probably have prevented the injury. An appellate court should not disturb conclusions on breach or causation that were properly open to the trial judge after hearing the evidence.

The claimant, a residential social worker, injured her wrist when she opened the door of a children’s residential unit to two intoxicated youths who tried to force entry. She alleged that the absence of a security chain breached the common-law duty of care and statutory workplace safety duties. Damages were agreed, leaving liability for determination.

The recorder rejected all pleaded breaches, including the allegation concerning the door. The appeal was confined principally to the absence of a chain. The central issues were whether the omission constituted a breach and whether a chain would have been used so as to prevent the injury.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the recorder’s decision.

1. Per Rix LJ, the recorder was entitled to find that the absence of a chain involved no breach of duty at common law or under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 or the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992. Although aggression from residents or visitors was a known possibility, there had been no recorded trouble at the front door, the system had operated satisfactorily for about 12 years, staff had received relevant training, and alternative precautions were available. The claimant could have established who was outside by speaking through the door or attracting attention from the lounge window.
2. Causation provided an independent reason for dismissal. The claimant bore the burden of proving that, if a chain had been installed, she would have used it. That question had not been explored in the evidence. She had opened the door believing that the youths were residents, had never asked who was outside before opening it, and the youths had not initially appeared aggressive. The court could not infer that she would have opened or kept the door on a chain.
3. The appellate court could not properly reject findings reached by a trial judge who had heard the witnesses and had an evidential basis for his conclusions on breach and causation.
4. Lord Phillips MR added that prompt advancement of claims assists investigation, negotiation, preparation of witness statements and reliable recollection. The observation was directed to the difficulties created by the claimant’s delay in this case.

The appeal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s agreed costs of £1,945 plus VAT within 28 days.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2002] EWCA Civ 1753, the appeal was dismissed and the recorder’s decision upheld.
• Cardiff County Court: Recorder D Wyn Rees determined liability at trial and rejected the pleaded breaches of duty. No separate citation is stated in the judgment.