Speak to a member of our specialist international team of UK personal injury lawyers today on 0330 107 0107.
A hand injury at work claim involving severe finger amputation and £170,000 compensation for unsafe construction practices began after a Lithuanian dryliner suffered a serious accident caused by inadequate tools and an unsafe work method. The injury produced long-term disability, significant treatment needs and reduced earning capacity. IMD Solicitors represented the worker and secured a fair settlement despite strong opposition from the defendant.
1. Background of the Construction Accident
Unsafe Equipment and Improvised Cutting Platform
The claimant was an experienced dryliner installing wooden floorboards under employer instruction. He received only a handheld plan saw with no cutting table, stable platform or supervisory support. His colleague worked elsewhere on the site and could not assist. When a small adjustment to a floorboard was required, he created a temporary platform using two planks due to the absence of safe equipment. The makeshift structure collapsed immediately. The plan saw slipped and struck his right hand.
The injury caused deep lacerations, fractures and severe trauma to several fingers. His index finger required surgical amputation. Two other fingers retained limited movement. His hand remained weak, scarred and numb. He required extended hospital care and rehabilitation.
2. Employer Responsibility and Legal Position
Early Admission of Liability but Disputed Contributory Fault
IMD Solicitors submitted the claim, and the defendant admitted primary liability without delay. They accepted that proper tools, a safe method of work and essential equipment were missing. Despite this, they argued contributory negligence, stating that the claimant should have asked for more tools or sought help from a colleague. IMD Solicitors rejected that position. Employers hold statutory duties to provide safe equipment and safe working methods, and these duties cannot pass to an employee.
A significant paragraph containing bullet points is included here, summarising the employer’s failings in a compact form:
- Failure to provide a stable cutting table.
- Failure to supply appropriate tools for the required work.
- Failure to ensure proper supervision and safe working methods.
- Failure to conduct risk assessments related to cutting tasks.
3. Evidence, Medical Assessment and Surveillance Footage
Challenging Edited Recordings and Weak Allegations of Dishonesty
The claimant could not work for many months. His trade required strong bilateral hand function. IMD Solicitors prepared a detailed Schedule of Loss covering past and future earnings. Medical evidence confirmed permanent functional restriction affecting heavy manual work.
The defendant later tried to weaken the claim. They disclosed edited surveillance footage, alleged dishonesty and attempted to stop negotiations. IMD Solicitors LLP secured a court order requiring full disclosure of all recordings. The unedited material ran for many hours and showed nothing that conflicted with the medical evidence.
To ensure accuracy, IMD Solicitors located the original medical expert, who had retired. A supplementary opinion confirmed that the claimant’s recorded activities matched the earlier clinical findings. He had not performed actions exceeding his documented ability.
The defendant attempted to rely on a statement from the claimant’s former partner. The court struck out the statement due to reliability concerns.
4. Settlement Outcome and Legal Conclusions
Achieving £170,000 for a Life-Changing Hand Injury
IMD Solicitors LLP maintained a firm position throughout the litigation. Evidence established clear breaches of essential safety obligations, including insufficient equipment and the absence of a stable work platform. Those failures resulted in long-term functional loss and reduced earning capacity. Following detailed exchanges, negotiations progressed and produced a £170,000 settlement. This sum reflected pain, suffering, loss of amenity, financial loss and required rehabilitation. The claimant later returned to employment in a modified role with limited future options.
Conclusion
This hand injury at work claim involving severe finger amputation and £170,000 compensation for unsafe construction practices shows clear employer failures. The surveillance evidence required full disclosure and independent review. The medical findings remained consistent throughout. IMD Solicitors secured a fair result through precise analysis and strong legal strategy.
This article guide is for general information only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. This article was created on 04/02/2026. Please note that the law may have changed since this article was published.
