UK: A Slippery Slope? Supreme Court Decision In Kennedy v Cordia

Last Updated: 16 February 2016
Article by Marco Rinaldi

The case

Tracey Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP [2016] UKSC 6

The issue

When Ms Kennedy slipped on snow and ice, her employers, Cordia (Services) LLP, were held liable at a hearing before a Lord Ordinary in the Court of Session.

Cordia appealed successfully, the Extra Division of the Court of Session holding that the health and safety expert's evidence was inadmissible, and that in any event there was no breach of the regulations or common law.

A further appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, with Ms Kennedy asking the court to overturn the finding of the Extra Division.

The facts

The winter of 2010 in Scotland was severe. On 18 December 2010, Ms Kennedy was visiting a terminally-ill elderly housebound person during the course of her employment with Cordia. To reach the person's house, she had to navigate a path which was covered with snow and ice. As she did so, she slipped and fractured her wrist.

Before the Lord Ordinary, she led evidence from a "health and safety expert." In evidence, he expressed the opinion that Cordia had not adequately assessed the risk, nor had they provided the correct work equipment – in this case, a clip-on attachment for shoes called "Yaktrax".

The expert stated that this meant that the defenders were in breach of Regulation 3 of the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (failure to carry out suitable risk assessments), and Regulations 4 and 10 of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (requiring employers to provide suitable equipment to their employees to avoid risks to their health and safety, and ensure the equipment is properly used).

Cordia had objected to the expert's evidence, arguing it was inadmissible as the expert had no relevant special skill nor specialised learning.

The decision

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal, overturning the Extra Division's findings.

The Extra Division had expressed concern at the apparent common practice of producing "expert" reports in personal injury actions that do not actually display any expert quality.

Lord Clarke put it succinctly: "If the opinion of a witness is not based on the principles of some recognised branch of knowledge in which he has particular experience and expertise, it is useless 'expert' evidence and should be held to be inadmissible."

"Health and safety" experts such as the one employed by Ms Kennedy in this case failed on both counts. Not only was "health and safety" not a recognised body of science or experience suitably acknowledged as being useful and reliable, but the expert's opinion evidence was unnecessary. His evidence was only his own personal view, and thus the Extra Division held it as inadmissible.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The expert had the necessary experience and qualification to explain how anti-slip attachments reduced the risk of slipping. The expansion of the statutory duties imposed on employers in the field of health and safety has given rise to a body of knowledge and experience in this field which creates the context in which the court has to assess an employer's performance of its duty of care.

Insofar as some of the expert's statements might be viewed as inadmissible expressions of opinion on legal duties, "an experienced judge could...readily treat the statements as opinion of a skilled witness as to health & safety practice, and make his own mind up on the legal question."

Based on the evidence available, the Lord Ordinary had been entitled to conclude there was a breach of regulation 3 of the 1999 Regulations as a suitable and sufficient risk assessment had not been prepared.

It was incorrect to say, as the Extra Division had, that the PPE Regulations did not apply because Ms Kennedy was not "at work" when travelling between clients. Travelling from one client's home to another's was an integral part of her work. The phrase "while at work" in the Regulations referred to the time when she was exposed to the risk; that is, during the time when she was in the course of her employment. It did not refer to the cause of the risk.

The evidence available, including the expert evidence, allowed the Lord Ordinary to conclude that on the balance of probabilities she would not have fallen if she had been provided with the "Yaktrax". He had therefore been entitled to hold there had been a breach of regulation 4(1).

As to the alleged negligence under common law, while the Supreme Court understood the concern that the law should not be excessively paternalistic, it was wrong to compare Ms Kennedy to an ordinary member of the public. An ordinary member of the public could choose to stay in and avoid the snow and ice, or choose to travel only on footpaths which had been treated or cleared. Ms Kennedy, as part of her employment, had to travel on the untreated footpath to reach the client's door.

A reasonably prudent employer would have carried out a risk assessment – and had they done so, they would have learned that attachments were available at a modest cost to reduce the risk, and had been used by other employers in a similar position.

Finally, the Supreme Court considered the question of causation. There was a causal component to the concept of "suitability" in terms of regulation 4(1) of the PPE regulations; namely that the protection offered must make the risk of injury "highly unlikely". Therefore, where there was evidence that the PPE would have been used if provided, as Ms Kennedy said she would here, and the employee was injured, then it would be reasonable to infer that the failure to provide the anti-slip attachments materially contributed to the accident.

They did however rule that consideration of causation at common law was more problematical, and there was no proper foundation for the Lord Ordinary's decision that Cordia were liable in damages at common law – but this was of no practical significance given their findings in relation to the regulations.

Our view

The decision of the Extra Division had been hailed by defenders as curbing the instruction of experts in cases where they were not required.

The Supreme Court decision is likely to reverse that trend, and demonstrates that it will be very difficult to argue against the instruction (and therefore expense) of health & safety "experts" in the future.

The decision is of vital importance to any employer who requires employees to traverse footpaths and carriageways in icy conditions. It will likely be used by trade unions to argue that in such circumstances the failure to provide shoe attachments in icy conditions is a breach of both the regulations and the common law duty of care, and where employees sustain injury as a consequence of a trip or fall on ice or snow, liability should follow. It should be noted however, that the Supreme Court's decision, depended upon the factual findings made by the judge who initially heard the case. Those factual findings are not binding in future cases.

The comments on causation also appear to signal a shift in the usual approach to causation in cases under the regulations – moving from a "but for" test to one more akin to a material increase in risk test. The differentiation of causation under the regulations, and causation at common law, is also a development which will have to be watched closely.

Read the full decision here.

A Slippery Slope? Supreme Court Decision In Kennedy v Cordia

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Marco Rinaldi
In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions