Claim hinged on whether door counts as ‘equipment’ under Employer’s Liability Act
A former Dechert lawyer who suffered a “concussive injury” after being struck on the head by an office fire door handle has lost a personal injury claim that could have been worth seven figures.
Simish Chuhan, who was an associate in the London office of US outfit Dechert, was leaving the café in the firm’s old office when a fire door’s handle came loose and struck her head. As a result, Chuhan brought a claim in the county court at Bristol.
The provisional costs in the claim “for loss of earnings alone would amount to a seven figure sum”, according to a summary of the case by DAC Beachcroft, which acted for the defendant insurers.
Interestingly, her claim was based on the Employer’s Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 — rather than the common law tort of negligence. Both parties knew the claim rested on whether or not the door (and its handle) constituted “equipment” under the legislation.
Chuhan’s legal team also argued that the screw threads securing the handle to the door were too short and damaged — an allegation denied by the firm. The handle had been in service for 13 years, and according to the summary, there was no evidence that it was insecure when originally installed or that it had been negligently maintained afterward.
Whilst noting that few cases had clarified what “equipment” meant under the act, the judge ruled:
“Doors are not generally regarded as ‘equipment’” [and there are] “intrinsic difficulties with describing a plain and ordinary door used in an office building as ‘equipment’. It is not used in the course of a solicitor’s employment save as part of the building in which that solicitor is employed… it cannot really be said that the door is somehow part of the process of providing legal advice.”
Chuhan’s claim was dismissed as a result.
According to her LinkedIn profile, she qualified at the firm in 2017 and has experience in white collar crime and securities litigation.
(
(
