CONTACT US

Make an initial enquiry to see how we can help you

Please let us know your name.
Invalid Input
Please enter a valid phone number
Please let us know your email address.
Please let us know your message.




0800 988 8082

Contact us

News & Insights

Catch up with the latest news.

Author :

When you sustain an injury at work, whether this is from an accident or a series of repetitive movements causing injury, it is crucial to prove that your employers were negligent and breached their duty of care towards you as an employee.

Sheriff Campbell in the recent case of Agnieszka Swierzko -v- Mathiesons Bakery Limited [2024] SC EDIN 43 considered whether the Pursuer was able to establish their employer breached their duty of care.

This case involved a back injury which Ms Swierzko, Pursuer, alleged she sustained because of lifting 10 kg trays during her employment with Mathisons Bakery Limited, Defender. Ms Swierzko stated that her back pain worsened over time.

The Pursuer argued that the Defender breached their duty by failing to properly assess the risks associated with lifting the 10kg tray and failing to provide a safe system to follow for the task. The Pursuer also argued that the Manual Handling Regulations should inform common law, and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 did not change the burden of proof in manual handling cases.

The Defenders disputed this, advising that adequate training and risk assessment were in place. They went on to state that the Regulations and common law were distinct, and the 2013 Act only modified the civil liability for health and safety breaches.

The Court heard the evidence from both parties and concluded that while the Defenders had some risk assessments in place, such as documents outlining lifting procedures and safety measures, the Pursuer did not prove that the lifting task itself was unreasonably risky or that the Defenders' actions fell short of the legal requirements. The Court also held that the was no evidence that further precautions should have been taken.

In summary, the court found the pursuer failed to prove that her employers, the Defenders, were negligent in failing to adequately assess the risks of manual handling in terms of the task at hand. Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of the Defender.

What must you establish?

  1. There is a duty upon the employer.
  2. That duty has been breached, i.e., by failure to adequately risk assess, provide training, or supply reasonable safe equipment.
  3. That your injury was a direct cause of the employer’s failure
  4. There were reasonable alternatives or alterations the employer could have made to reduce the risk.

If you have been injured following an accident at work,  please contact us to discuss your case with a member of our team. Call us today on 0800 988 8082 or complete our online enquiry form and we will get back to you right away.

CONTACT US

Please let us know your name.
Invalid Input
Please enter a valid phone number
Please let us know your email address.
Please let us know your message.


  • Ranked in Chambers 2023
  • The Legal 500 - Leading Firm 2023
  •