This is one of only a handful of examples of an interpretation of regulation 4 by the Court of Appeal. From a lay perspective, this interpretation of regulation 4 does not appear to be entirely consistent with the HSE's guidance.

As is often the case in such Judgments, regulations 6 & 7 are addressed together and not considered separately.

There are also brief references to: the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974; the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992; the Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002; the HSE's guidance on the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations; and the HSE's guidance on WRULDs.

In the Judgment at first instance on the 4th January 2008, at A on page 33, HH Judge Dixon states:

There was corporate ignorance of published Health and Safety Executive Guidance and of some legal requirements.

V2.01

This case summary is published with the kind permission of Lawtel (www.lawtel.com). Lawtel subscribers can access the full report at www.lawtel.com or for a free trial of the service click here.

An appeal against a decision dismissing an employee's claim against her employer in respect of personal injuries at work was allowed in part. While the employee's work at a computer did not cause her wrist pain, it had aggravated it, and her work on the tasks that aggravated the pain could have been reduced further than it was after it had been diagnosed.

The appellant employee (G) appealed against a decision dismissing her claim against the respondent employer (B) for damages for personal injuries sustained in the course of her employment. G worked as an insurance adviser for B, writing letters inviting customers to renew their insurance policies and carrying out a number of other administrative functions. She sat at a workstation in B's office. G developed a pain in her wrists around the same time as she had a car accident, although it was unclear whether the accident and the pain were connected. Her symptoms subsided when she went on holiday, and returned when she returned to work. She visited her doctor, who signed her off work and diagnosed tenosynovitis, a condition where posture, repetition and lack of rest were important factors in development. After returning to work, G soon returned to working on renewals, although she dealt with fewer than she had before. Her wrist pain, which had improved while she was off work, returned and grew worse. G claimed damages for personal injuries and consequential losses on the grounds of negligence and breach of statutory duty by B. The judge rejected the diagnosis of tenosynovitis, found that G's symptoms were not caused by her work, held that B had not been in breach of the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 reg.4, nor had it been negligent, and held that although it had been in breach of reg.2, reg.6 and reg.7 of the Regulations, those breaches had not caused injury to G. G argued that (1) her injury was caused by her work; (2) B had been in breach of its duty under reg.4; (3) B had been negligent, and its failure to comply with its duties under reg.6 and reg.7 did have a causative effect on her symptoms.

HELD: (1) On the evidence, G's workstation and posture were satisfactory, and the volume of her work was not such that there was either excessive repetition or insufficient rest. The judge had been entitled to reject the diagnosis of tenosynovitis. The underlying cause of the pain in G's wrists was not known, but it had been shown that her symptoms were aggravated whenever her work consisted principally of typing up renewals. The judge ought to have held, on the balance of probabilities, that the pain was aggravated by her keyboard work. (2) B had not planned G's activities to allow breaks or changes in activity to reduce her workload on the display screen equipment, but in practice, her daily routine was interrupted by such breaks. It was not the case that B had inadvertently complied with reg.4, because reg.4 required it to plan G's activities in a particular way, whereas B had not planned G's activities at all. B was in breach of reg.4, but that breach had no causative effect. (3) The judge had concluded that the amount of typing G did each day was not such as to cause a reasonable employer to foresee any risk of personal injury, and that no-one would have expected G's moderate use of the keyboard to be causing personal injury, even if B had provided proper training and information. Those conclusions could not be faulted in respect of the period up to G's diagnosis with tenosynovitis. After then, B had been alerted to that fact that G had pain in her wrists and that pain appeared to be related to her keyboard work. Her workload on renewals was reduced, but that reduction was not sufficient. B was therefore liable in negligence for the recurrence of G's symptoms which occurred following her diagnosis. Similarly, had B provided proper training and information after the diagnosis, G's keyboard use would have been substantially less than it was, with the consequence that the recurrence in her symptoms would not have occurred.

Appeal allowed in part