The officer had been cut by glass when clearing out a cannabis factory. The risk assessment had identified only a need for latex gloves. She said that given the environment heavier garden gloves should have been provided. The Chief Constable appealed against a finding against the force.
Held: The appeal failed. The finding was that there was a low but not de minimis level of risk in the cannabis factory generally. The judge was not limiting the risk to the extraction only of the plants themselves. In my view this was a perfectly proper inference. This was not a case where she had been told specifically to limit her work to taking out the cannabis plants. I can see that had that been the evidence, there would have been a much stronger case to contend that latex gloves were suitable. But it was not the evidence. On the contrary, the evidence was that the officer was one of a number of officers tasked with dismantling the factory and this could involve her carrying out the whole range of tasks involved in that activity. She might at any time run the risk of contact with sharp objects.
Elias, Patten LJJ
 EWCA Civ 496,  WLR(D) 171,  PIQR P20,  ICR 1150
ersonal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 4
England and Wales
Cited – Threlfall v Hull City Council CA 20-Oct-2010
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for personal injuries. He had been employed cleaning streets and when his hand was badly cut, complained that he should have had protective gloves.
Held: For equipment to be suitable, it . .
Cited – Ghaith v Indesit Company UK Ltd CA 17-May-2012
The claimant suffered a back injury lifting materials from a van during a stock take.
Held: The court considered the issue of causation under the Regulations. Longmore LJ said: ‘This is not a separate hurdle for the employee, granted that the . .
Cited – Fytche v Wincanton Logistics Plc HL 1-Jul-2004
The claimant was employed as a milk truck driver. He was issued with a pair of boots capped to protect his feet from impact. In a snowstorm, and against company advice, he sough to dig himself out. The boots leaked and he suffered frostbite. He . .
Cited – Hughes v Lord Advocate HL 21-Feb-1963
The defendants had left a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. A child climbed down the hole. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps. It fell into the hole and caused an explosion. The child was burned. The . .
Cited – McWilliams v Sir William Arrol and Company Ltd HL 21-Feb-1962
Damages were sought after the death of the pursuer’s husband working for the respondent. The trial judge had been satisfied that even if the defendants had performed their duty at common law and pursuant to statute, and had provided the deceased . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.503505