At the time of the accident, the client worked in a factory that fabricated PVC windows and fire doors, amongst other things. He had been employed by the defendant for 8 years.

The client fell off some narrow, wooden steps when he was taking a wheelie bin down them into the yard. The steps were loose and could be removed by hand. When the client fell, the wheelie bin fell on top of him.

The client approached Joshua to see if he could claim recompense against his employer, and Joshua contacted the employer.

The employer denied liability, saying that the client was using the incorrect route, that the steps in question should not have been used and that there were safer routes available to him. The employer claimed that the correct loading area that should have been used for moving the waste was clear and that he would have walked past this loading bay/safer route to get to the steps.

The client denied this, saying that the route described by the employer was often blocked by heavy machinery and other detritus, which made it impossible to move the bin using that route – and he provided a diagram that showed how this would look.  He also said that the route he used was a common access route. CCTV verified that.

The case against the employer centred on the fact that a system of work that required someone to bounce a wheelie bin downstairs, which increased the risk of falls, was ridiculous.

The employer made allegations of dishonesty against the client, accusing him of manufacturing the accident for financial gain – this claim was disproved by CCTV.

It also accused the client of not having the recommended physiotherapy to mitigate his loss. The client’s medical records showed that the client had undertaken physiotherapy. Joshua obtained these records and provided them to the employer. Joshua also obtained a medical report from a consultant in emergency medicine that was supportive of the client’s injuries. The employer had the opportunity to put questions to the expert, but missed the deadline, despite asking for an extension to do this.

Finally, the employer accused the client of doing self-employed jobs during the period for which he was claiming loss of earnings.  The client provided all his bank statements to disprove this.

The accident prevented the client from working for six months, but when he asked the employer for a phased return to work due to his injury, the employer refused.  The client found alternative employment.

Joshua issued court proceedings against the employer. The trial was due to take place on 3.4.2022, but the day before the employer decided to settle the matter and made a compensation offer, which the client was happy to accept.   Joshua said:

 “The employer’s case was weak and going to trial would have led to a substantially higher cost.  Settling a case is almost always preferable to going to court.  The cost is always lower for the defendant, and it leads to far less stress for the claimant.  We are pleased to have concluded the case to our client’s satisfaction.”

If you have had an accident at work and you want to find out if you can make a claim for compensation, contact our experts now.  We will meet you, free of charge, to discuss your case and if we can take it on, we will offer you a no-win, no-fee arrangement. You can find out more about making a personal injury claim on our web pages.