Lawyer loses claim she was injured by Dechert door handle

_{Johnny didn't want to risk using the handle (allegedly).}

An ex-Dechert solicitor has failed in her claim that a loose office door handle caused her serious injury when it hit her on the head.

Simish Chuhan qualified as a solicitor at Dechert in 2017, specialising in white collar crime. In November 2018, she was leaving the firm's café when she pulled a door handle which she said became detached and struck her on the head, inflicting a "concussive head injury".

Chuhan claimed that she has been unable to work as a solicitor since the incident, and brought an action against Dechert for a "significant potential value" for past and future earnings, which would have amounted to a seven-figure sum.

The former Dechert lawyer sued under the Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969, claiming she had been injured in the course of employment due to a "defect in equipment" provided by the firm for the purposes of its business.

Her doorknob analysis determined the handle was defective because one of the screws was too short, and the thread had been damaged. But Dechert said there was no evidence the handle was not secure when installed, nor that it had been negligently maintained.

The firm also testified that a maintenance engineer had inspected the handle after the accident, and concluded that there was nothing wrong with the fittings, and that it was secure.

Dechert also contended that the 1969 Act did not apply, as the handle and door did not amount to being work "equipment" (specified under the act as including "any plant and machinery, vehicle, aircraft and clothing"), as summarised by DAC Beachcroft, who acted for Dechert and its insurers.

In a ground-breaking case (when it comes to doors and handles in law firms), the judge, HHJ Berkley, agreed with Dechert that doors were "not generally regarded as 'equipment'", and that "it cannot really be said that the door is somehow part of the process of providing legal advice". The claim was dismissed.

LU icon Join thousands of candidates on LawyerUp, the app where top employers get in touch directly when they like you for a role. It's available on the App Store and Google Play to anyone in the legal sector.

The judge therefore held that the door and handle were not distinguishable items of work equipment, and dismissed the claim.

Other possible hazards in the office have included Gowling WLG's pigeon death trap, and WFW's plummeting lift.

The RollOnFriday Newsletter

Comments

Don't let the door hit you on the etc etc

Did doyenne of Dechert’s white collar crime practice Neil Gerrard investigate this matter?

Sounds like she didn't have a good handle on her case.

"she was leaving the firm's café when she pulled a door handle which she said became detached and struck her on the head, inflicting a "concussive head injury"

She must have traps and biceps like a Olympic weightlifter. Like, how hard did you have to pull on the handle for it to have that level of velocity when it got to your head.

Forget this suing for damages malarky, someone get this women a big job in the metalurgy industry. We can close down whole production lines for copper wire and she can just make us spools of the stuff by stretching out blocks of solid metal with her bare hands.

Do you think she has Tindr account?

This happened in 2017. Why has she not been able to work as a solicitor for the following eight years?? Now she definitely won't - imagine the embarrassment of being known as the associate who KO'd yourself with a door handle.

Would love to make a pun but others above have (I'd have gone for one about having a screw loose). Is there not a concurrent Occupiers Liability claim available? I wouldn't know as not a litigator.