Tyson Strachan v Albany Resort Operator Ltd (The Bahamas)

A claimant in negligence must prove both careless conduct and damage. Uncontradicted first-hand evidence may establish an injury caused by an accident, although expert evidence may be required to link the accident to particular surgical procedures or other complex consequences.

An employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace is not strict. Rainwater on slip-resistant outdoor tiles does not establish breach without evidence that the employer, or an employee for whom it is vicariously liable, created or ought reasonably to have addressed a foreseeable hazard. A contractual employment claim must identify its legal basis, particularise the alleged breach and remedy, and be supported by evidence.

This was a second appeal from the dismissal of two claims arising from a workplace accident. The trial judge accepted the defendant’s submission of no case to answer and dismissed the negligence claim and a claim that the claimant had been unfairly disengaged from employment in judgment dated 8 October 2020, 2015/CLE/gen/00452.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant’s appeal, including the negligence appeal and the claim concerning termination of employment, SCCivApp No 67 of 2021. Before the Board, the central issues were whether the absence of expert medical evidence defeated the negligence claim and whether the employment claim had been sufficiently pleaded and proved.

The appeal was dismissed. The Board advised His Majesty accordingly.

1. Negligence and proof of damage. The claimant’s uncontradicted evidence that he suffered acute neck and back pain, required hospital admission and underwent physiotherapy established that he had sustained at least significant soft-tissue injuries in the fall. Expert medical evidence was required to establish the causal connection between the fall and the later cervical laminectomy and lumbar decompression, but it was not required to prove the existence of the more immediate injuries. The lower courts were wrong to dismiss the negligence claim on the ground that damage had not been proved.
2. No breach established. The judge was nevertheless entitled to find that the presence of water did not arise from want of care by the defendant. The evidence was that rain had wet the outdoor area. There was no evidence that the defendant caused the water, knew or ought to have known that it presented a danger requiring intervention, or that another employee ought to have observed and addressed the condition. The outdoor tiles were rough-textured sandstone tiles designed to reduce slipping, and there was no evidence that this precaution was insufficient. The plaintiff himself had crossed the area repeatedly without noticing water. The negligence claim therefore failed on breach, independently of the issue of damage.
3. Employment claim. The pleading did not identify whether the claim was contractual, statutory or consequential loss, and gave no particulars of the alleged unfairness or remedy. It was clarified before the Board as a claim for breach of the employment contract, not a statutory unfair-dismissal claim or a claim for loss of earnings caused by the accident. At common law, absent specific contractual terms, the employer was entitled to terminate by giving notice or by terminating and making payment in lieu. The termination letter referred to notice and recorded payments made in the statutory context of the Employment Act 2001, Part VII, section 29(b). Any possible shortfall in notice pay, medical insurance or vacation pay was neither pleaded, quantified nor supported by evidence. The claim remained wholly unparticularised and without evidential foundation.

• Privy Council: Second appeal dismissed; the Board advised His Majesty accordingly, [2026] UKPC 5.
• Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas: Appeal dismissed in relation to both claims, SCCivApp No 67 of 2021.
• Trial court: At the conclusion of the claimant’s case, the defendant’s submission of no case to answer was accepted and both claims were dismissed in judgment dated 8 October 2020, 2015/CLE/gen/00452.