tel: 0845 600 4996 or view our contact details

Receive Legal Updates

Enter your email address below to receive the latest legal updates from William B Rose:

 

RSS Feed News Feed

Page 1 of 14  > >>

13 Mar 2012

Please find below a summary of the changes scheduled to take place on 1 April.

03 Jun 2011
The right to additional paternity leave is now available to parents of babies due on or after 3 April 2011, and to adoptive parents notified of their match for adoption on or after that date.  

 

 

Request a Callback

You can request someone from WBR to call you back within 24 hours. Simply enter the details below and we will be in touch. Alternatively you can contact us.

Your Name*
Your Email Address*
Phone Number*
Optional Message:
 

Council get £100,000 bill over worker’s cut finger

A street cleaner’s cut little finger is set to cost Hull City Council more than £100,000 after a court ruled he had been issued the wrong gloves.



Steven Threlfall injured by a sharp object in a rubbish bag as he cleared a council house garden in 2006. 

 

The artery and nerve on the finger were severed and the tendon was partially cut, meaning he had to have surgery to repair the damage.

 

Mr. Threlfall claimed that the council were at fault as they had failed to provide him with cut resistant gloves thick enough to protect his hands when handling rubbish bags.  His claim for damages was dismissed at two previous court hearings, but upheld by the Civil Appeal Court.

 

The court ruled that the council had failed to provide him with the necessary equipment for the job and the council was ordered to pay £30,000 towards final costs which are expected to run into six figures.  They were also told that Mr. Threlfall should be given £3,000 in damages forthwith until a final settlement is agreed.

 

Mr. Threlfall’s solicitor told the court that the ‘standard rigger’s gloves’ his client was given were nothing more than ‘glorified gardening gloves’.

 

The Telegraph reported that Lady Justice Smith, Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Jackson said that the gloves ‘were plainly not effective to prevent or adequately control the risk of laceration’.



Bookmark and Share   Print this page Generate PDF
Previous page: Legal Updates  Next page: Practical Tips