The High Court found on 24 July 2026 that a subcontracted groundworker seriously injured on a construction site proved his negligence claim against Centaur Construction Ltd, and rejected an allegation of fundamental dishonesty.
Key facts
- Who: Subcontracted construction workers injured on site, and the firms that engage them.
- From: 24 July 2026 (date of judgment)
- Source: Euan Lawrence Cavell v Centaur Construction Ltd [2026] EWHC 1875 (KB)
In Euan Lawrence Cavell v Centaur Construction Ltd [2026] EWHC 1875 (KB), Susie Alegre, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court (King's Bench Division), gave judgment on liability on 24 July 2026 after a trial held between 7 and 13 July 2026.
Background. Euan Cavell was employed by Hudson Administration Services, a company that provides subcontractors to the construction industry. He worked as a subcontracted groundworker for Centaur, a civil engineering and groundworks firm.
On 2 September 2021, at a housing site in Braintree, Essex, he was run over by the dumper truck he had been driving. He had tried to get out without applying the handbrake, with the engine running, after plugging the seatbelt in behind his back to get around the engine cut-off safety feature. The judge adopted the term used by Centaur's counsel, "the unsafe shortcut".
Three of Centaur's employees rescued him from under a rear wheel. The amount of compensation (quantum) was settled before the judge ruled.
The question. It was accepted that the accident resulted from the unsafe shortcut. The key issue was whether Andrew Crick, Mr Cavell's boss, demonstrated or instructed him to use it, or whether Mr Cavell adopted it contrary to his employer's safety guidance. Centaur also asked the court to consider whether Mr Cavell was fundamentally dishonest if his claim succeeded.
The decision. The judge found the claim proved on the balance of probabilities and was not persuaded that Mr Cavell was fundamentally dishonest.
The claim was brought in common law negligence, including failure to provide a safe system of work, and under the Construction Regulations 2015. Regulation 17(2) provides that a construction site must, so far as is reasonably practicable, be made and kept safe for, and without risks to, the health of a person at work there.
The reasoning. The judge found it extremely unlikely that Mr Cavell devised the shortcut himself. She gave several reasons:
- He was trained and knew the safe procedure.
- He was paid by the day and so gained nothing by saving time.
- Two witnesses said he had not adopted unsafe practices while working with them on previous jobs.
She thought it more likely than not that his superior, Mr Crick, demonstrated it to him, with others on site using the same shortcut.
She gave very little weight to what he said immediately after the accident, given his shock and pain. She attributed discrepancies in his evidence to a tendency to agree with people in authority rather than to dishonesty.
She also said that the lack of earlier incidents at Centaur did not show that safety was tight. Safety protocols introduced after the accident did not show that the rules had been followed before it.
What this means for injured workers and the firms that engage them
The case turned on which account of events the court believed, weighing written and oral evidence. The claimant had to prove his case on the balance of probabilities, and the defendant had to prove any fundamental dishonesty to the same standard.
Anyone injured at work, or facing a claim, may wish to keep records of what they were told and shown about safe working, and to get advice before any deadline passes.
Sources
- Euan Lawrence Cavell v Centaur Construction Ltd [2026] EWHC 1875 (KB), High Court (King's Bench Division), 24 July 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2026/1875