GB - Orzechowska v ABF Plc (t/a Speedibake)

Judgment

The Hon. Mr Justice Coulson:

1. INTRODUCTION

In an extempore judgment given on 8 March 2013 at Bradford County Court, HHJ Bartfield dismissed the appellant’s personal injury claim. On 18 October 2013, Supperstone J gave the appellant permission to appeal that decision. No reasons were provided.

2. THE JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT

On 27 March 2010, the appellant was working at the respondent’s bakery. She was working on the production line, sitting at a chair placing muffins onto a conveyor belt. When the time came for her to be relieved, she left the chair and stepped away from it whilst her colleague, Mr Thorne, replaced her at the conveyor belt. As she changed places, she fell against or tripped over a pipe, about 18 inches off the ground, through which jam passed on its way between a large tank and a nozzle that allowed the jam to be inserted into the muffins. The pipe was about 6 inches in diameter.

The appellant’s claim was brought by reference to Regulation 12(3) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 which provided:

“So far as is reasonably practicable, every floor in a workplace and the surface of every traffic route in a workplace shall be kept free from obstructions and from any article or substance which may cause a person to slip, trip or fall.”

The judge made the following findings of fact:

The pipe was large and its location was clear to everyone. As the judge put it at paragraph 8 of his judgment, “you certainly cannot miss it”.

The pipe was in the same position on the day of the appellant’s fall as it was every other day, both before and after the accident (paragraph 13).

The gap between the chair and the pipe was one metre (paragraphs 8, 9 and 13).

The appellant stepped outside the area she needed to be in “for no good reason…and collided with a very straightforward object that was right in front of her” (paragraph 15).

The pipe did not present any danger to anybody. At paragraph 14 the judge developed this conclusion as follows:

“It seems to me that you could just as easily say that the chair on which the claimant and Mr Thorne had been sitting was also an obstruction, since it existed and was there. Following Mr Nazir’s reasoning, if somebody collided with the chair, they could say it was an obstruction that they had not noticed and I am afraid that is very much the category in which I see this piece of equipment. It is there for everybody to see, large and plain in front of them, and I am afr