A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y

Fadipe v Reed Nursing Personnel [2005] ICR 1760, CA

19 April 2007

F raised health and safety concerns during his employment with R. He was dismissed and when he applied for a new job, R supplied a reference which stated that although F’s work had been satisfactory, it would not give him any further work. F complained to an employment tribunal that R had subjected him to a detriment for having raised health and safety concerns, contrary to section 44(1)(c) of the 1996 Act. His complaint was rejected on the basis that the alleged detriment had occurred after the end of F’s employment with R. On appeal, it was argued on behalf of F that, by virtue of section 230(1) of the 1996 Act, protection under section 44 extended to former employees.

French v Sussex County Council [2005] PIQR P18, High Court

19 April 2007

Five police officers were involved in an operation in 1998 which resulted in the death of a suspect. The ranks of the officers ranged from a police constable, who was a firearms tactical adviser, to an acting chief inspector who was the incident commander. Four of the officers were charged with misfeasance in public office and one with murder. All were found not guilty. They were then subjected to disciplinary charges. The fifth officer was not charged.

Fraser v Winchester Health Authority (1999) The Times, July 12, CA

23 March 2007

F, who was aged 21, was a resident support worker at a home for disabled persons. She was sent on a week’s camping holiday with one of the patients. She was given no training or instruction in the use of camping equipment and had no supervision or assistance.

Fytche v Wincanton Logistics plc [2004] ICR 975, House of Lords

23 March 2007

F was employed by W as a driver of an articulated bulk tanker, collecting milk from farms in all weather conditions. He was provided every six months with steel-capped safety boots designed to protect his feet against injury from heavy, hard or sharp objects. Following a three-hour period of exposure to extreme weather conditions, he developed frostbite in his toe after water entered his right boot through a tiny hole in the sole. He claimed compensation from his employers for a breach of regulation 7(1) of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992. The Regulations state, in summary, that personal protective equipment must be maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.