High Court dismisses £6m claim by self-employed gardener following serious accident

Clyde & Co successfully defends homeowners in major liability dispute

Clyde & Co has successfully defended a High Court claim valued at more than £6 million brought by a self-employed gardener who sustained life-changing injuries following a fall from a step- ladder while carrying out work at a private property.

The firm represented the defendant insurer on behalf of two homeowners who faced allegations of negligence and employer’s liability following the accident. Claire Collins, Partner in Clyde & Co’s Casualty team, led the defence.

Background

The claimant suffered severe spinal injuries and was left paraplegic after falling from a ladder while cutting conifers at the defendants’ property. He alleged that the homeowners had failed to ensure a safe system of work and sought damages exceeding £6 million.

Initially, proceedings were brought against the homeowners and a “lead” gardener who was working alongside the claimant at the time of the accident. The claim against the co-worker - who was uninsured - was later discontinued, and the focus shifted entirely to the homeowners.

The trial

Liability was disputed, and the matter proceeded to a three-day preliminary hearing in the High Court, London, before Andrew Kinnier KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. The claimant was represented by Stephen Killalea KC, and the defendants by Shaun Ferris of Crown Office Chambers, instructed by Clyde & Co.

Both the claimant and the co-worker gave evidence confirming that they were independent contractors who controlled when and how the work was carried out. Neither expected or would have accepted instruction from the homeowners regarding their working methods.

The judgment

The Court found that no employment relationship, or one akin to employment, existed between the claimant and the homeowners. The claimant and his co-worker determined the method and timing of the work, and the defendants had no control over how the gardening tasks were performed.

Even if a duty of care had arisen, the Judge found that there was no breach. Both witnesses agreed that the task did not require specialist equipment such as scaffolding or tree surgeons, and that the system of work they adopted was safe. The Court concluded that it would be unrealistic to expect the homeowners to devise or supervise a method of work for independent contractors.

Accordingly, the claim was dismissed in its entirety.

Following the Claimant and “lead” gardener’s oral evidence.  We made the decision not to call the homeowners to give evidence and closed our case. A bold move, but we considered they had answered the claim against us in cross examination when they both confirmed they were self-employed gardeners; they did not consider their system of work unsafe; they were in complete control of their own working methods and they were not negligent.

While recognising the tragic nature of the claimant’s injuries, the Court held that the evidence did not support the existence of an employment relationship or negligence on the part of the homeowners.

Significance

The decision reinforces the distinction between homeowners engaging independent contractors and those assuming the responsibilities of an employer. It also underscores the importance of clearly defined working arrangements where self-employed tradespeople or gardeners undertake work on private property.