WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales

References to and/or interpretations of Health and Safety Regulations - Gallagher - v - Bond Pearce

Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
Regulation 2	Contextual Commentary | Gallagher - v - Bond Pearce | Find Other Cases

In this County Court Judgment on the 9th February 2001, at E on page 3, HH Judge Tyzack says:

On 14th December 1992 an audit was carried out by Mr. O of the Defendants. This was a Health and Safety audit, which the Defendants felt was required in anticipation of the coming into force of the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992. (For the sake of simplicity I shall refer to them hereafter as the DSE Regulations.) They came into force on 1st January 1993. The Claimant told me that Mr. O was with her for about ten minutes. She understood that this was nothing more than an equipment check. I have not heard Mr. O give evidence about this audit.

Then, starting at B on page 4, HH Judge Tyzack says:

I return to the audit. Mr. O went through a prepared checklist with her which identified certain matters that needed attention: namely, that she required a document holder, a footrest, her chair needed replacing, and blinds were to be fitted to the window or windows of the office where she worked.

I have been referred to the detail of the DSE Regulations by [Counsel for the Claimant], and I am quite satisfied, especially having heard the Claimant's engineering expert and the Defendants' expert, that this audit by Mr. O was manifestly inadequate. In particular, the Defendants failed to ensure that prior to this audit the Claimant was given any training, a specific requirement of Regulation 6 of the DSE Regulations, and which in my judgment was an absolutely essential prerequisite to the completion of any checklist. I am quite satisfied that the Claimant herself had no idea at all that this audit was purporting to be a risk assessment carried out pursuant to the DSE Regulations. The guidance notes to the DSE Regulations at page 446 provide as follows - and I set out in my judgment paragraphs 19 and 21 in full, including (a) to (d).

I also find that there was no adequate regard to urgency so far as the identified action was concerned. I accept the Claimant's evidence that the document holder was not provided until about November 1993 - nearly 12 months later - and the footrest was provided sometime after that. That was hardly consistent, in my judgment, with paragraph 42 of the guidance notes to the DSE Regulations. I quote from paragraph 42(a)

"If assessment of an existing work station shows there is a risk to users or operators, the employer should take immediate steps to reduce the risk."

So far as the provision of document holders was concerned, Mr. S said that the reason for the delay was that the Defendants wanted to try out several first, and that this took time. I am afraid I do not accept that explanation as a valid reason for nearly 12 months' delay. It is common ground that no audit or assessment was ever carried out by the Defendants into the overtime work station which the Claimant used from August 1994.

At F on page 6, HH Judge Tyzack says:

Of course, the fact that I find the Defendants to be in breach of regulations 2, 4 and 6 of the DSE Regulations, as I do, does not inescapably lead to the conclusion that they are liable to the Claimant in this action.

V1.01

Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
Regulation 4	Contextual Commentary | Gallagher - v - Bond Pearce | Find Other Cases

In this County Court Judgment on the 9th February 2001, at F on page 5, HH Judge Tyzack says:

I am also quite satisfied that the Defendants were in breach of regulation 4 of the DSE Regulations. The text of this is set out on page 434 of the document before me, and reads as follows:

"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 reduce their workload on that equipment."

The notes to this regulation are set out at page 453, paragraphs 43, which I set out in full in this judgment, and paragraphs 46 and 47.

However, after the audit was completed in December 1992, I find that the Claimant's daily working routine continued in exactly the same way as it had before. This is consistent with my overall finding that the Claimant was working in a very busy commercial department for a successful and hard-working partner. The work which the Claimant was required to type was, as I find, very often urgent, and Mr. W was an exacting boss, often requiring work to be retyped after changes or amendments had been made. He for his part valued the Claimant's work, as he told me, and indeed as the Claimant herself told me, and I accept that he did not like his work being typed by anybody else. He said in evidence, in terms, that he rated the Claimant highly, and assessed her as "very good". He never felt that she did not pull her weight. For her part, she liked working for him. She liked being part of a team with him and was quite happy to work hard for him.

In that climate I find that the Defendants did not apply their minds adequately to the necessity for rest breaks. It must follow that I find them to be in breach of regulation 4. They only tried to comply with that regulation much later, namely in about March 1995. Of course, the fact that I find the Defendants to be in breach of regulations 2, 4 and 6 of the DSE Regulations, as I do, does not inescapably lead to the conclusion that they are liable to the Claimant in this action.

V1.01

Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
Regulation 6	Contextual Commentary | Gallagher - v - Bond Pearce | Find Other Cases

In this County Court Judgment on the 9th February 2001, at D on page 4, HH Judge Tyzack says:

I have been referred to the detail of the DSE Regulations by [Counsel for the Claimant], and I am quite satisfied, especially having heard the Claimant's engineering expert and the Defendants' expert, that this audit by Mr. O was manifestly inadequate. In particular, the Defendants failed to ensure that prior to this audit the Claimant was given any training, a specific requirement of Regulation 6 of the DSE Regulations, and which in my judgment was an absolutely essential prerequisite to the completion of any checklist. I am quite satisfied that the Claimant herself had no idea at all that this audit was purporting to be a risk assessment carried out pursuant to the DSE Regulations.

At F on page 6, HH Judge Tyzack says:

Of course, the fact that I find the Defendants to be in breach of regulations 2, 4 and 6 of the DSE Regulations, as I do, does not inescapably lead to the conclusion that they are liable to the Claimant in this action.

V1.01

Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
Regulation 7	Contextual Commentary | Gallagher - v - Bond Pearce | Find Other Cases

In this County Court Judgment on the 9th February 2001, starting at B on page 7, HH Judge Tyzack says:

On or about 16th November 1993, the Defendants assert that they provided the Claimant with a memo and an information pack relating to the DSE Regulations. For her part, she has no recollection of receiving this information. Mr. S told me that he was responsible for sending it out. However, he was unsure as to exactly what he did. He said it may have gone out by hand, or it may have been placed in the department's pigeon hole for distribution by the post room staff.

Having heard all the evidence on this issue, whilst I accept that the Defendants intended to distribute it to all relevant members of their staff, I am not satisfied that the Claimant did receive hers. These were, after all, very important documents, which the Defendants well, knew, or ought to have known, purported to show that they had complied with regulation 7 of the DSE Regulations. That provides as follows:

"(1) Every employer shall ensure that operators and users at work in his undertaking are provided with adequate information about (a) all aspects of health and safety relating to their work stations, and (b) such measures taken by him in compliance with his duties under regulations (2) and (3) as relate to them and their work.

(2) Every employer shall ensure that users at work in his undertaking are provided with adequate information about such measures taken by him in compliance with his duties under regulation (4) and (6)(ii) as relate to them and their work.

(3) Every employer shall ensure that users employed by him are provided with adequate information about such measures taken by him in compliance with his duties under regulations (5) and (6)(i) as relate to them and their work."

This document was not simply an ordinary memo to all employees. Bearing in mind its importance, a degree of formality as to its circulation would in my judgment have been expected of the prudent employer. For example, handed individually to each relevant employee with a short verbal explanation as to what it was, and that it was Important for its contents to be read and understood, and for any questions about it to be directed to a particular person. I could envisage the prudent employer requiring those who had received the pack to indicate by signature or initials that each had done so. I am also quite satisfied that had the Claimant seen it, she would probably have remembered seeing it.

Then starting at E on page 9, HH Judge Tyzack says:

On 20th December 1994 a second DSE Regulations's pack was distributed to all relevant employees, and this time the Claimant admits that she received hers. It was at about this time that the Defendants moved their premises from The Crescent to Ballard House. Sometime before that, however, the Claimant says she began to notice aches and pains in her hands and wrists, and went to see Alison Thompson about it. The latter worked in the Personnel Department. The reason why the Claimant went to see Mrs. Thompson was to ask her if there were any wrist supports available.

The Claimant said, and l accept, that Mrs. Thompson told her to go and see her G.P. This was in about September or October 1994.

V1.01

Last updated: 14/05/2013