Judgment: 2025-06-26 · Court archive

High Court dismisses stable hand’s wheelbarrow injury claim at Curragh stables

High Court · [2025] IEHC 364

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Mark Lawless (Plaintiff)
  • Adrian Keatley (Defendant)
What

High Court dismisses stable hand’s wheelbarrow injury claim at Curragh stables

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Rossmore Cottage Stables
  • High Court
  • Circuit Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Twomey J found that Lawless probably emptied the wheelbarrow from a flat surface and experienced back pain while carrying out that ordinary task. Applying Court of Appeal authority, the judge held that an employer is not automatically liable for an injury merely because an everyday activity happens at work.

The High Court has dismissed Mark Lawless’s personal injuries claim against racehorse trainer Adrian Keatley over a back injury he said occurred while emptying a wheelbarrow at stables in the Curragh, Co Kildare.

Lawless said he was injured on March 9, 2016 while cleaning soiled hay from horse boxes at Rossmore Cottage Stables. At the hearing, he said he pushed a loaded wheelbarrow up an incline of soiled hay and felt his back go into spasm while tipping it out.

Mr Justice Twomey, hearing the matter as a Circuit Court appeal, did not accept that account on the balance of probabilities. The judge noted that emptying the wheelbarrow on an incline had not appeared in Lawless’s original pleadings and only emerged years later after an engineer’s report.

The court also identified inconsistencies between Lawless’s testimony and medical records. One note referred to a fall while looking after a horse, while other records indicated that symptoms developed two or three days after the incident rather than immediately.

Twomey J found that Lawless probably emptied the wheelbarrow from a flat surface and experienced back pain while carrying out that ordinary task. Applying Court of Appeal authority, the judge held that an employer is not automatically liable for an injury merely because an everyday activity happens at work.

The court also gave two alternative reasons for rejecting the claim. Even if Lawless had emptied the wheelbarrow on an incline, the judge found that it was his responsibility to keep the dungstead’s concrete floor clear or request mechanical clearing. Separately, the court held that the incline allegation had not been properly pleaded, meaning Keatley had not been given adequate notice of the case he had to meet.

Lawless’s claim was dismissed. The court’s preliminary view was that he should also pay the costs of both the High Court and Circuit Court proceedings, subject to hearing the parties before final orders were made.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review