Cassley & Ors v GMP Securities Europe LLP & Ors

An employer’s duty of care extends to taking reasonable steps to protect an employee travelling to remote third-party premises in the course of employment. The duty is personal and non-delegable, but its scope depends on the circumstances. An employer may rely substantially on a competent organiser or contractor, provided it makes sufficient enquiries to satisfy itself that the proposed arrangements are reasonably safe.

A company arranging travel for a visitor assumes responsibility to take reasonable care in selecting the carrier where it controls the arrangements and the visitor relies on it. That duty does not ordinarily make the company liable for the negligent performance of an independent carrier. Causation requires proof that reasonable further enquiries would probably have prevented the employee from undertaking the journey. Both claims failed on causation or breach.

The claimants were the dependants of James Cassley, a corporate financier employed by GMP Securities Europe LLP. He died when a charter aircraft operated by Aero-Service crashed into the Avima ridge in the Republic of Congo during a flight arranged by Sundance Resources Limited.

The claim against GMP alleged breach of its employer’s duty of care in failing to investigate the proposed travel and carrier. The claim against Sundance alleged that it had assumed responsibility for arranging the flight and had failed properly to select and assess Aero-Service. The trial concerned liability, including causation.

1. GMP’s duty. GMP owed Mr Cassley the ordinary employer’s duties to provide a safe system of work and to take reasonable care not to expose him to unnecessary foreseeable risks. That duty extended to travel to remote third-party premises and was personal and non-delegable. The scope of the duty remained fact-sensitive. GMP could rely substantially on Sundance, but it had to make reasonable enquiries about the trip and its safety.
2. Breach by GMP. GMP made no meaningful enquiries about the proposed internal flights, the carrier, the route or Sundance’s safety arrangements. It failed to comply with its own health and safety policies. The proposed waiver, particularly its requirement that GMP conduct its own investigations, should have prompted further enquiries. GMP was therefore in breach.
3. Causation against GMP. The information GMP should initially have sought concerned Jetfly, because that was the carrier identified to it. The information would have been reassuring. GMP had no reasonable means of knowing about the late substitution of Aero-Service. Even if GMP had identified Aero-Service, the available information, including its previous successful use by Sundance and its audits, would not probably have led GMP to prevent Mr Cassley from flying. The accident resulted from pilot error and was not a highly likely consequence of the matters for which GMP was responsible.
4. Sundance’s duty. Sundance assumed responsibility for the arrangements because it organised the trip, controlled the arrangements and invited Mr Cassley as its guest. It owed a duty to take reasonable care in selecting Aero-Service. The duty was not a non-delegable obligation to procure the careful performance of the carrier’s work. The unsigned waiver had no legal effect. Even if effective, it could not exclude liability for death or personal injury under Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, nor negate the duty owed personally to Mr Cassley.
5. Breach by Sundance. Sundance had made reasonable enquiries. It knew Aero-Service was established, had been recommended, had appropriate documentation and insurance, and had previously flown Sundance, including the Congolese Minister of Mines, safely to Yangadou. The flight was low risk and routine. Sundance was not required to micro-manage the aircraft, pilots, charts, weather planning or equipment, or to engage an aviation consultant.
6. Alternative causation. Even if Sundance should have followed up its requests for manuals or audits, the three audits would have confirmed its positive view of Aero-Service. They would not probably have caused cancellation or selection of another carrier. The claims against both defendants were therefore dismissed.