Groves v Lord Wimbourne [1898] 2 QB 402
Breach of statutory duty; failure to fence machinery; whether claimant has cause of action
Facts
The claimant was employed at the defendant’s iron works at a steam winch with revolving cog wheels. His right arm became trapped in the cog wheels and he sustained a severe injury which resulted in his right forearm being amputated. The cog wheels had been unfenced in breach of section 5 of the Factory and Workshop Act 1878 which placed the employer under an absolute duty to ensure that dangerous machinery was appropriately fenced. The claimant brought an action against the employer for personal injury caused by his breach of statutory duty.
Issues
The claimant asserted the defendant failed to ensure the admittedly dangerous machinery was fenced contrary to his statutory duty, causing him to sustain injury. Where a statutory duty is imposed for the benefit of a limited class of persons and the alternative remedy of financial penalty would not adequately compensate the person the statute is designed to protect, then parliament cannot have intended this to be the only remedy available, and a personal cause of action should lie with the claimant. The defendant contended the 1878 Act provided financial penalties be imposed for breach of its provisions, and this was the only remedy available.
Decision/Outcome
The claimant’s claim was upheld. The fact that there were alternative penalties in terms of financial penalties available for breach of section 5 did not preclude a claim for breach of statutory duty on the part of the claimant. The statutory provisions were intended to protect factory workers from dangerous machinery and, accordingly, a worker who is injured as a result of a breach of the 1878 Act will have a direct cause of action.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the facts, issues, and decision in Groves v Lord Wimbourne [1898] 2 QB 402, which remains a leading authority on the tort of breach of statutory duty and is still regularly cited in that context in English law.
Readers should note, however, that the underlying legislative framework has changed significantly. The Factory and Workshop Act 1878 has long been repealed and replaced through successive legislation, most recently consolidated and then substantially reformed by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and associated regulations. More significantly, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 amended section 47 of the 1974 Act to remove the general right of civil action for breach of health and safety regulations made under that Act (unless the regulations expressly preserve it). This represents a major shift in the practical scope of breach of statutory duty claims in the workplace context. The case itself and the common law principles it establishes regarding when a private cause of action arises from a statutory duty remain good law, but students should be aware that the modern legislative landscape considerably limits the application of those principles in employment and workplace safety claims.
