Statement made on behalf of the Defendant

Construgomes Engenharia SA
First Statement
Date made: 27 September 2021
Number of Exhibits: 3

Case No. 009LR009

IN THE COUNTY COURT SITTING AT MANCHESTER

Between:
Jose Manuel Miranda Da Silva
Claimant
and

Construgomes Engenharia SA
Defendant

Witness Statement of Mr Luis Marques

1. I, Mr Luis Marques, of c/o Construgomes Engenharia SA, Dongagall House, 7 Donegall Square
North, Belfast, BT1 5GB, will say as follows:

2. I am employed by the Defendant as a Health and Safety Advisor and was in this role at the
time of the Claimant’s incident.

3. I make this witness statement following a Microsoft Teams video conference call with the
Defendant’s Solicitor on 27 September 2021. The contents of this witness are based upon the
contents of my own knowledge unless stated otherwise.

4. I understand that the Claimant’s incident occurred on 26 June 2017 whilst the Claimant was
working for the Defendant on a project at Mersey Gateway Bridge in Runcorn, Cheshire,
England (“the Site”). The Defendant had been contracted to work at the Site by their client
and the main contactor for the works, Merseylink. I understand that whilst working at the
Site, the Claimant was required to walk down some ladders. As he did so his foot slipped, and
he fell approximately 2-3 metres on the floor. From my understanding, as the Claimant
landed on the floor his right wrist hit a beam that had been left on the floor, resulting in the
Claimant fracturing his right wrist.

5. I can confirm that I did not see the Claimant’s incident take place.
6. I can confirm that the Claimant is only known to me as a former work colleague.

7. Initially, I was notified of the Claimant’s incident as my colleague, Pedro Faria, called me to
explain what had happened.

8. This was the normal procedure for reporting an accident. The Defendant’s foreman at a
particular site would normally tell the engineer, who would then contact the health and
safety supervisor, which in this case was myself, about any accident involving the
Defendant’s staff whilst at work.

9. During our call, I asked Pedro about how the Claimant’s accident had happened and he told
me that he understood the Claimant had fallen off a ladder and onto his back, sustaining an
injury to his hand when he collided with the wooden beams at the bottom.

10. About 5 minutes or so after Pedro’s call was made, I arranged for the Claimant to be moved
into my car and he was taken to the local hospital to assess his injuries.

11. After arriving at the hospital and having the Claimant seen by the doctors, I discussed with
him how his accident occurred. During our discussion, the Claimant told me that he had
something in his hand as he was descending down the ladder.

12. As part of my role for the Defendant, I was responsible for conducting the post-incident
investigations and I spoke to some of the staff on Site to understand what exactly had
happened.

13. Following my investigations, I had concluded that at the time of the accident, the Claimant
had been going down the ladder whilst holding a tool in one hand. The Claimant therefore
did not have both hands on the ladder as he was going down, and as a result, I consider he
lost his grip/balance and fell to the floor. I refer to the exhibit marked LM 1 which is a copy of
the Defendant’s Accident and “Near Miss” Report which confirms the circumstances of the
Claimant’s accident and that he was carrying a tool in his hand whilst using the ladder.

14. I can confirm that it is not the normal procedure for staff to walk down the ladder holding
something else in their hand as they need both hands in order to ensure that they are safely
going down the ladder. The possibility to fall off the ladder whilst not having both hands on

2
 it is high and staff are trained not always use both hands when ascending or descending a
ladder.

15. Prior to beginning their work, the Defendant informs their staff about the risks to health and
safety on a particular site which they are working at, with staff given training sessions about
the risks and how to reduce/avoid them. This includes, for example, how staff should safely
use a ladder. I refer to the exhibit marked LM 2 which are copies of the Claimant’s signed
training records for “Falls at the Same Level” and “Work at Height “ which were completed
prior to his accident on 22 March 2017 and 29 March 2017 respectively. As the records
detail, the training was given the Health and Safety Advisors Bruno Magalhaes and Tania
Afonso. The training that was given to the staff, including the Claimant, was given in
Portuguese as the staff are Portuguese nationals.

16. In addition, the Defendant arranges for the staff to have daily staff briefings before any work
is undertaken on a given day, explaining to staff about what work needs to be done on a
given day. Such briefings would include telling staff how to go down ladders safely and also
the various other health and safety aspects at a particular site. I refer to the exhibit marked
LM 3 which are copies of the Claimant’s training records prior to the incident which confirms
that he had received work at height training prior to his incident.

17. The Claimant, prior to his accident, was an experienced employee. The Claimant had
received training from the Defendant prior to his incident about how to go down a ladder
safely.

18. I can confirm that Merseylink owned the ladder involved in the Claimant’s incident, not the
Defendant. Merseylink were responsible for inspecting the ladder and to ensure that the
area was checked and safe to be used by their staff and the subcontractors on Site, such as
the Defendant’s staff. The Defendant was not responsible for checking the ladder pre and
post installation.

19. The ladders in place at the Site were given either a green or a red tag by Merseylink in order
to indicate if the ladder was safe or not to be used. The green tag confirmed that the ladder
was safe to be used whilst the red tag warned that the ladder was not to be used. At the
time of the Claimant’s incident, the ladder had a green tag on it as I am aware that staff were
routinely going up and down the ladder without any issue.

3
 20. During my time at the Site, I was not aware of any of the Defendant’s other staff, or anyone
else, having any issues going up and down the ladder. I can confirm that I had used it without
any problems.

21. As part of my role, I would undertake general patrols to check on the work of the other
members of staff. If I had seen, for example an issue with a ladder, I would have reported it
to Merseylink to sort out and to ensure that the Defendant’s workers did not go up and
down it.

22. After reporting such an issue to Merseylink, the ladder or the area would then be closed
down and permission would not be given for staff to use it.

23. In respect of the individual staff themselves, if I saw any health and safety issues, I would ask
the staff to stop what they are doing and talk to them to explain the health and safety
requirements for what they need to be doing correctly.

24. Based upon my investigation into the incident, I consider that the cause of the accident was
due to the Claimant coming down the ladder with a tool in his hand and not having both
hands safely on the ladder. Had he had both hands on the ladder and not carrying anything
else, I consider that the incident could have been avoided.

25. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that
proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to
be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest
belief in its truth.

Signed: ……………………….
Name: ……………………….
Dated: ………………………….

Ref: TJM-QDA.001- 155

This document is classified as CONFIDENTIAL

Given the current circumstances regarding Covid-19, for the foreseeable future please ensure all
correspondence is sent electronically by email and not by post or DX.

4
 Statement made on behalf of the Defendant
Construgomes Engenharia SA
First Statement
Date made: 27 September 2021
Number of Exhibits: 3

Case No. 009LR009

IN THE COUNTY COURT SITTING AT MANCHESTER

Between:
Jose Manuel Miranda Da Silva
Claimant
and

Construgomes Engenharia SA
Defendant

Exhibit LM 1

5
 Statement made on behalf of the Defendant
Construgomes Engenharia SA
First Statement
Date made: 27 September 2021
Number of Exhibits: 3

Case No. 009LR009

IN THE COUNTY COURT SITTING AT MANCHESTER

Between:
Jose Manuel Miranda Da Silva
Claimant
and

Construgomes Engenharia SA
Defendant

Exhibit LM 2

6
 Statement made on behalf of the Defendant
Construgomes Engenharia SA
First Statement
Date made: 27 September 2021
Number of Exhibits: 3

Case No. 009LR009

IN THE COUNTY COURT SITTING AT MANCHESTER

Between:
Jose Manuel Miranda Da Silva
Claimant
and

Construgomes Engenharia SA
Defendant

Exhibit LM 3

I, John Monteiro, certify that I am fluent in English and Portuguese, and that the
above/attached document is an accurate translation of the document attached entitled
QDA001-155_1141467 PT.

13/1/2022
John Monteiro
R Luís Sardoeira 80, Roço, Portugal