Filipe was 35 years old when he sustained a constellation of injuries, including a brain injury and an above-knee amputation as a result of a platform tipping during his work on a construction site in Jersey on 2 February 2021.

The Royal Court of Jersey has handed down its decision in (1) Jose Filipe Camara De Abreu (2) RS Reinforcements Limited and (3) CNR Construction [2025] JRC106 in which Stewarts’ International Injury partner, Scott Rigby, working with Simon Thomas and James Wood of Baker & Partners and Mr William Audland KC and David White of 12 King’s Bench Walk, represents the plaintiff, Mr De Abreu (“Filipe”). Scott reviews the case and the court’s decision to find the first defendant liable for Filipe’s injuries on a joint and several basis.

Background

Filipe decided to instruct Stewarts after he became dissatisfied with the quality of the advice and level of service being provided to him by his previous Jersey lawyers.

He was working at height on an improperly installed elevated platform. The platform overbalanced and tipped up. Filipe slid down the length of the platform and fell approximately 12 metres to the road below, causing him to sustain life-changing injuries.

Filipe was employed by the first defendant, a Jersey-based construction company and “loaned” to the second defendant, a French construction company.

The second defendant was responsible for the construction and maintenance of the platform that failed and was prosecuted by the Jersey Health and Safety Inspectorate. It pleaded guilty and was fined £100,000 plus costs. The prosecution found that the site manager, who was under time pressure as the building site was running several days behind, had not followed proper procedures for securing the scaffold platforms. News stories about this prosecution can be found here and here.

The second defendant admitted liability in relation to Filipe’s civil claim and had made interim payments of compensation. However, the second defendant had only limited insurance cover (including legal costs) to meet Filipe’s claim for damages.

The first defendant, which was operating on the same construction site and at times providing Filipe with work when he wasn’t undertaking tasks for the second defendant, denied liability for Filipe’s accident.

Filipe asserted he had raised concerns about the state of the platform with the first defendant before his accident, but the first defendant did nothing about these concerns. Even though Filipe was “loaned” to the second defendant, the first defendant retained a non-delegable duty of care to Filipe and breached that duty of care.

Due to the limited insurance cover provided by the second defendant, it was crucial that the first defendant was also found liable for Filipe’s accident so that he could access its insurance cover to prevent him from being under-compensated for his injuries.

Court decision

The case was listed for a five-day trial to consider all outstanding liability issues in relation to Filipe’s claim. At trial, the Royal Court was asked to determine two questions:

1. Was the first defendant liable to Filipe, and
2. If the first defendant was liable to Filipe, what was the appropriate apportionment of damages between the first and second defendants?

In handing down its decision, the Royal Court found that both the first and second defendants were jointly and severally liable for Filipe’s accident and that the correct apportionment between the defendants is 20% as to the first defendant and 80% as to the second defendant.

Conclusion

Upon considering the judgment Scott Rigby said:

“I am delighted for Filipe. This outcome is an excellent one and means, most importantly, that Filipe will be able to access both defendants’ insurance cover and so avoid being uncompensated for the lifechanging injuries he has sustained. The legal relationships between the defendants and Filipe made this a complex case and demonstrated the importance of instructing lawyers with the necessary expertise and resources.

We will now move on to the calculation of Filipe’s claim for damages and to securing a level of compensation for him which will meet his lifelong needs for suitable accommodation, therapies, care assistance and aids and equipment, so that he and his family are able to achieve the best possible quality of life and independence.”

What our client said

Filipe says:

“On 2 February 2021, I had the misfortune of having an accident which changed my life forever. I needed lawyers to represent me in my case, since the effect of my injuries would last the rest of my life. Over time, I realised the lawyers I had instructed were not the right ones. I did not feel safe with them and as a result I stopped believing in my case.

Fortunately, I had good people by my side who were able to help me change my lawyers, and they found the best lawyers I could possibly have. They have looked after me and my family in the best way I could have ever imagined. I have a lot to thank Scott and Simon, and their excellent teams, for in helping me to achieve this result. They are a spectacular partnership. Thanks for everything!”