Hammond v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis and others: CA 11 Jun 2004

The claimant mechanic was employed by the Commissioner of Police. He was working on the wheel of a police dog van when the shearing of a wheel bolt caused him to suffer injury. The question was whether the van was ‘work equipment’ within the meaning of the 1992 regulations, which defined ‘work equipment’: ‘any machinery, appliance, apparatus or tool and any assembly of components which, in order to achieve a common end, are arranged and controlled so that they function as a whole.’ The scope of the duty is defined by regulation 4(1): ‘The requirements imposed by these Regulations on an employer shall apply in respect of work equipment provided for use or used by any of his employees who is at work.’
Held: May LJ said: ‘Although the definition of what may be work equipment is to be found in regulation 2, the ambit of the expression ‘work equipment’ in these Regulations is determined by regulation 4 . . This indicates . . that the Regulations are concerned with what may loosely be described as the tools of the trade provided by an employer to an employee to enable the employee to carry out his work . . The van might well be work equipment of a policeman driving it, but not of the police mechanic repairing it.’
May LJ
[2004] EWCA Civ 830, [2004] ICR 1467
Bailii
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 6
England and Wales
Cited by:
Not approvedSpencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd and others HL 2-Jul-2008
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 . .
CitedSmith v Northamptonshire County Council HL 20-May-2009
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 . .
CitedAbdul and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Feb-2011
abdul_dppAdmn11
The defendants appealed against convictions for using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour . . within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. He had attended a . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 January 2021; Ref: scu.198499