WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales

References to and/or interpretations of Health and Safety Regulations - Horridge & Roberts - v - Gan Insurance Co Ltd

Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
Regulation 4	Contextual Commentary | Horridge & Roberts - v - Gan Insurance Co Ltd | Find Other Cases

In this County Court Judgment on the 21st September 2001, at paragraph 5, HH Judge Brunning says:

There is no dispute that regulation 4 of the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 applied to the Claimant's work. The relevant regulation was regulation 4. It provides:

"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 at that equipment."

Having quoted paragraphs 43 to 45 and summarised paragraphs 46 to 48 of the HSE's guidance on regulation 4 of the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations, HH Judge Brunning says at paragraph 13 of his Judgment:

The substance of the case is that there were insufficient breaks or changes of activity and that the Defendants imposed on the Claimants work targets which put undue pressure to complete work within a certain time which added to the strain upon the Claimants and were causative of injury.

Having reviewed the evidence, HH Judge Brunning says at paragraph 38:

I am satisfied, having considered the regulations and the nature of the Claimants' employment, that the Defendants were not required to institute a regime of rest breaks and pauses in order to discharge their statutory duty to the Claimants. The nature of the work was so widely varied, and natural breaks occurred so frequently within it, that there was no negligence in failing to take steps of the kind asserted in the Particulars of Claim. Accordingly the claims must fail at this hurdle.

V1.01

Last updated: 14/05/2013