Cook v Square D Ltd [1992] ICR 262
The Court of Appeal allowed an employer’s appeal after an engineer was injured at a third party’s premises in Saudi Arabia. The employer continued to owe a duty of reasonable care, but the existence of a workplace hazard did not itself establish that the employer had breached that duty.
Facts
Alan Cook was a field service engineer employed by Square D Ltd. His work involved overseas assignments. In 1982, he was sent to Saudi Arabia to commission computer control systems at premises occupied by Aramco Overseas Company, where Fluor Arabia Ltd was the main contractor.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
The control-room floor consisted of removable tiles, allowing access to wiring underneath. On 13 March 1982, Cook was showing other workers how to fit and test computer parts. One tile had been lifted and turned, leaving openings around it and a narrow passage beside the cabinets. Cook knew about the opening and warned the others, but slipped and trapped his foot in it. His knee injury subsequently required surgery.
The claim and appeal
Cook alleged that Square D had failed to protect him from the danger, including by providing barriers or ensuring a safe system of work. The trial judge found the employer liable and awarded £9,037.40. Square D appealed. Claims against the occupier and main contractor had not been pursued.
Reasoning
The employer’s duty was to take reasonable care for its employee’s safety. That duty could not simply be transferred to someone else because the work took place on another company’s premises. However, what reasonable care required depended on the circumstances.
Relevant considerations included the location and nature of the premises, the work involved, the employee’s experience, the control the employer could reasonably exercise and its knowledge of any danger. The trial judge had treated the existence of the hazard as sufficient without identifying the particular precaution Square D should reasonably have taken.
Cook’s work was largely sedentary, the site was overseas, and it was occupied and managed by reliable companies responsible for safety there. In those circumstances, Square D was not required to inspect the site or supervise its day-to-day operations. The Court of Appeal held that the employer had satisfied its duty.
Outcome
The employer’s appeal was allowed. The decision concerned the reasonable precautions required on these facts; it did not establish that employers have no responsibility for employees working abroad or on premises belonging to someone else.
Judgment: Court of Appeal, 16 October 1991; reported at [1992] ICR 262. Cook v Square D Ltd.
