Peter Manning v Dnata Catering UK Limited

An employer must provide equipment and a system of work that are reasonably safe for the task. Where securing equipment is unsuitable for a particular vehicle, the employer may be liable for the resulting injury, even though the employee has extensive experience. Breach of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 does not itself found a civil claim, but the underlying unsafe system may evidence breach of the common-law duty of care. An employee who knowingly uses an unsafe method may bear responsibility for the accident. A 25% reduction for contributory negligence was appropriate.

The claimant, an airport catering loader, was injured while securing catering carts inside a lorry operated by the defendant employer. He alleged that the supplied straps were unsuitable for the lorry’s fittings, that the defendant failed to provide a safe system of work and suitable training, and that it breached the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992.

The lorry was scrapped before inspection, leaving the court without measurements of the relevant rails. The central issues were how the accident occurred, whether the strap could be securely attached, whether the defendant had provided suitable equipment and a safe system, and whether an adverse inference should be drawn from the lost opportunity to inspect the lorry.

1. Liability. The accident occurred when the claimant tightened a strap whose hook had been placed in a vertical slot and suddenly became dislodged. The claimant knew that the hook would not fit securely into the circular holes. The defendant’s system was haphazard, and suitable straps were not readily available for the lorry. A safe system should have provided dedicated straps compatible with the relevant fittings. This amounted to a breach of the employer’s duty to take reasonable care.
2. Manual handling regulations. The operation of loading the carts fell within the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992. Although breach of those Regulations was not actionable in civil law following section 69 of the Enterprise Act 2013, the failure to provide suitable straps was nevertheless a breach of the Regulations and supported the conclusion that the system of work was unsafe.
3. Adverse inference. The court accepted the principles discussed in Keefe v Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 683 and Shaw-Lincoln v Neelakanadan [2012] EWHC 1150 (QB). Whether an inference should be drawn, and its extent, depended on the circumstances, including the connection between the breach and the unavailable evidence and the other evidence before the court. No adverse inference was drawn because the lorry’s destruction was unrelated to the accident and occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, although the lost evidence prejudiced the claimant.
4. Contributory negligence. The claimant was experienced and should have appreciated that attaching the hook to the vertical slot was unsafe. He could also have made a full complaint requesting suitable straps. His damages were therefore reduced by 25% under section 1 of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. Counsel were directed to draw up the order.