WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales

References to and/or interpretations of HSE Guidance Documents - Westray - v - Midland Bank plc

Display Screen Equipment Work: Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992. Guidance on Regulations: L26 1992
Regulation 4	Westray - v - Midland Bank plc | Find Other Cases

In the Judgment on the 17th June 1997, starting at C on page 89, HH Judge Eaglestone states:

However, from January,1993 the Display Screen Equipment Regulations came into force. Regulation 4 of the Regulations reads:

"Every employer shall so plan the activities of users at work in his undertaking that their daily work on display screen equipment is periodically interrupted by such breaks or changes of activity as reduced their workload at that equipment."

The guidance also appears on the same page at 45(c):

"Short frequent breaks are more satisfactory than occasional longer breaks, eg, a 5 to 10 minute break after 50 to 60 minutes continuous screen, hand or keyboard work is likely to be better than a 15 minute break every 2 hours."

The defendants argue that the guidance is simply a guidance and imposes no duty on employers to give breaks of any particular frequency or interval. I agree with their interpretation of the Regulations.

[The Plaintiff's Engineer] said he would have preferred the defendants to have given a smaller break every hour but he did not at any stage of his evidence say the defendants were in breach of their duty of care to the plaintiff which is not surprising given the standard applied in industry at the material time. Moreover, the fact that [the Plaintiff's Medical Expert] thought more frequent short breaks would have been beneficial for the plaintiff and may have avoided or delayed the onset of symptoms is, I find, irrelevant on this point given the practice in industry at the material time.

On the same point [The Plaintiff's Engineer] said that there is no scientific evidence to support the argument that a lack of breaks causes injury. I accept that evidence from [The Plaintiff's Engineer].

The defendants, I find, were not in breach of Regulation 4 of the Display Screen Equipment Regulations.

V1.01

Last updated: 14/05/2013