Where both defendants have failed to identify the same hazard and the cause of the plaintiff's initial fall cannot be determined on the evidence, the focus for apportionment of contribution properly falls on the identified hazard, and equal apportionment may be justified. The fact that one defendant's duty (as employer) is more stringent than the other's (as occupier) is irrelevant to apportionment where the identified negligence relates to a hazard for which both had concurrent responsibility. A Calderbank offer or Offer to Contribute made before pleadings are filed and without explanation of why the offeree's position is wrong may be found to be premature and its rejection not unreasonable.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.