The Court of Appeal has set aside a €53,682.95 High Court award to a filling-station worker who injured her right knee while stocktaking, and dismissed her claim against her employer, Topaz Energy Group Limited.
In a judgment delivered on 7 October 2021, Mr Justice Noonan, with whom Ms Justice Faherty and Mr Justice Binchy agreed, allowed the company’s appeal. The High Court had found the employer liable and awarded €40,000 in general damages and €13,682.95 in special damages, plus costs.
The worker was injured at the company’s filling station in Clonshaugh, County Dublin, on 28 January 2017. The appeal judgment said she was accessing magazines in a low press behind the counter during a stocktake. CCTV showed her kneeling on her right knee and squatting on her left leg while scanning about nine magazines. The activity lasted about one minute and seven seconds; she appeared to suffer pain as she rose.
Before trial, her case and the expert reports had described an injury sustained after prolonged squatting. The CCTV was viewed by the worker, her legal team and her engineer on the morning the trial began. Her case then included claims that she should have been given a stool or kneeling cushion, or that the magazines should have been stored higher. The appeal judgment noted that these matters had not been included in the engineer’s report.
The High Court had concluded that the injury was foreseeable, the employer’s risk assessment did not address lower-limb injuries from kneeling or squatting, and appropriate equipment had not been provided. The Court of Appeal found that conclusion unsupported by credible evidence. It said the safety material relied on by the trial judge concerned prolonged or repeated squatting and did not apply to this brief task. It also found no evidence that the cupboard’s later change of use showed it had been unsuitable, or that the change was made because of the accident.
The appeal court said the trial judge had not adequately engaged with the competing engineering evidence or explained why one expert’s view was preferred. It concluded there was no credible evidence to support liability and dismissed the claim.
The court’s proposed costs order was in the employer’s favour for both the appeal and High Court proceedings. The worker had 14 days to notify the Court of Appeal Office if she wished to argue for a different order. If no application was made, the proposed order would be made; any supplemental hearing could carry additional costs for her if the proposed order followed.