The claimant firefighter crushed a finger trying to release a traffic accident victim with a heavy machine for expanding gaps in metal. The defendant appealed on liability. The court was asked whether a simple warning of the possible danger was sufficient. Held: The employer’s appeal failed (majority). The employer had given inadequate training. The judge … Continue reading Pennington v Surrey County Council and Surrey Fire and Rescue Service: CA 9 Nov 2006
The claimant was employed as a care worker to collect patients to take them to a day centre. She was injured when a wheelchair ramp in a patient’s home collapsed. Held: The council were not responsible under the Regulations. They did not own or control the ramp. The ramp was not work equipment used by … Continue reading Smith v Northamptonshire County Council: CA 11 Mar 2008
The court considered liability after serious injury was suffered by a professional jockey during a steeplechase. His horse threw him after landing and he collided with a guard rail. He now appealed against dismissal of his claim. Held: His appeal succeeded: ‘it is not enough for a defendant, where Regulations apply, simply to comply with … Continue reading Hide v The Steeplechase Company (Cheltenham) Ltd and Others: CA 22 May 2013
The claimant was working in a prison supervising working prisoners. One of them dropped a bag of rice on her causing injury. At the County Curt, the prisoner was found negligence in the prisoner, but not the appellant for vicarious liability. The claimant’s appeal succeeded at the Court of Appeal. Held: The Minister’s appeal failed. … Continue reading Cox v Ministry of Justice: SC 2 Mar 2016
The claimant was injured working for the defendants on a semi-submersible platform. He fell from a ladder which was not secured properly. He alleged a breach of the Regulations. The defendant denied any breach and asserted that the claimant had contributed to the accident by his negligence. Held: The employee’s appeal succeeded. The aim in … Continue reading Robb v Salamis (M and I) Ltd: HL 13 Dec 2006
A lift was held to be work equipment within the Regulations. Citations: [2006] EWCA Civ 1119, [2007] ICR 78 Links: Bailii Statutes: Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 5 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd and others HL 2-Jul-2008 The deceased worked for the … Continue reading PRP Architects v Reid: CA 28 Jul 2006
The court considered the effect of the regulations: ‘Regulation 4 and indeed 5 are concerned with the physical condition of the equipment on the assumption that they will be properly operated by properly trained and instructed personnel.’ A risk assessment was relevant to the identification of what the employer should have done. Judges: Clarke LJ … Continue reading Griffiths v Vauxhall Motors Ltd: CA 12 Mar 2003
The claimant was injured on a poolside on an ‘It’s a Knock Out’ fun day organised by the defendants. He suggested that the risk assessment was inadequate. Held: The claim failed. The question for decision is not whether adequate risk assessments had been undertaken, but whether the defendants took reasonable measures to ensure that the … Continue reading Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd and Others: QBD 22 Jan 2010
Judges: Jeremy Baker J Citations: [2018] EWHC 810 (QB), [2018] WLR(D) 226 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Health and Safety, Personal Injury Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.609114
The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. Held: The bank’s appeal succeeded. The bank owed a duty … Continue reading HM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc: HL 21 Jun 2006
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out. Held: If the true nature of the transactions could be seen by looking at them all together, then … Continue reading W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners: HL 12 Mar 1981
(Extra Division Inner House) ‘In this action for damages for personal injury three central issues arise: (1) Was the wardrobe pole which fell and injured the pursuer ‘work equipment provided by the defenders for use or used by an employee of theirs at work’ for the purpose of The Provision and Use of Work Equipment … Continue reading Coia v Portavadie Estates Ltd: SCS 6 Jan 2015
The claimant sought damages after suffering injury when falling from a ladder working on the uninsured builder’s site. He sued the owners of the property, saying that by refusing to allow or pay for the work to be conducted in safer ways, she had taken control over the works and made herself responsible, pointing to … Continue reading Kmiecic v Isaacs: QBD 12 Mar 2010
The deceased worked for the defendants on an oil rig. He was injured by a door closer he was attempting to repair. The defendants denied that the mechanism was equipment within the Regulations. Held: The appeal was allowed. The door closer was apparatus for use at work, though provided by a different company. The Regulations … Continue reading Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd and others: HL 2 Jul 2008
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside. Held: Investors having once assigned their causes of action to the ICS, could not later … Continue reading Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society: HL 19 Jun 1997
The twelve applicants had been unfairly dismissed by the transferor immediately before the transfer, and for a reason connected with the transfer under section 8(1). The question was whether the liability for unfair dismissal compensation transferred to the transferee. Held: It is the duty of a UK court to construe a statute, so far as … Continue reading Litster and Others v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd: HL 16 Mar 1989
The claimant, a health care worker was visiting the home of a client when she fell from a defective wheelchair ramp and suffered injury. She sought damages from her employer. Held: Her appeal failed (Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting). The test was whether the equipment was sufficiently incorporated into and adopted as part of … Continue reading Smith v Northamptonshire County Council: HL 20 May 2009
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
