WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales
References to and/or interpretations of Health and Safety Regulations - Trotman - v - London Borough of Tower Hamlets
| Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 | |
|---|---|
| Contextual Commentary | Trotman - v - London Borough of Tower Hamlets | Find Other Cases | |
In this County Court Judgment on the 24th September 2002, at paragraph 20, HH Judge Dean says:
The law: The case was originally pleaded upon alleged breaches of both statutory and common law duties. By the end of the hearing, counsel for the claimant did not pursue the case based on common law duties and was content to rely upon statutory provisions. A number of relevant statutory regulations were cited and relied upon. The principal regulation was the Health & Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992. For short referred to as DSE Regulations, Display Screen Equipment Regulations. In particular Regulations 2, 3,4, 6 and 7 were relied upon. The defendants admitted they were in breach of those regulations and there was no issue on that with the exception of Regulation 4, in respect of which breach was denied. I will now read what those particular regulations require.
Towards the end of paragraph 25, HH Judge Dean says:
It will be readily apparent from my findings of fact that each one of those regulations was quite seriously broken. Indeed, apart from Regulation 4 of the DSE Regulations, the breaches are admitted.
V1.01
| Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 | |
|---|---|
| Regulation 2 | Contextual Commentary | Trotman - v - London Borough of Tower Hamlets | Find Other Cases |
In this County Court Judgment on the 24th September 2002, in paragraph 21, HH Judge Dean says:
Regulation 2, there is an admitted breach of this regulation:
"Every employer shall perform a suitable and sufficient analysis of the workstations for the purpose of assessing the health and safety risks to which persons at those stations are exposed."
There is also an obligation to keep the assessment current and up to date. There is then an obligation under Regulation 2(3):
"The employer shall reduce the risks identified in consequence of the assessment to the lowest extent reasonably practicable."
In paragraph 27, HH Judge Dean says:
She was working in a small cramped room at unsuitable table, had an unsuitable chair, which was not capable of being adjusted as required by Regulation 3 of the DSE Regulations. She had to work as a result in an uncomfortable posture and no assessment of the work situation had been undertaken as the defendants were obliged to do under Regulation 2 of the DSE Regulations, it was only very late in the day that assessments were made by an occupational nurse, Nurse Ross. As far as I can see from the evidence, her recommendations do not seem to have been implemented; certainly not at first.
V1.01
| Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 | |
|---|---|
| Regulation 3 | Contextual Commentary | Trotman - v - London Borough of Tower Hamlets | Find Other Cases |
In this County Court Judgment on the 24th September 2002, in paragraph 21, HH Judge Dean says:
In addition, Regulation 3 provides that:
"Every employer shall ensure that any workstation first put into service on or after 1st January 1993 or if brought into service before that date then at the latest by 31st December 1996, shall meet the requirements laid down in the schedule to the regulations."
A breach of this requirement is also admitted. The schedule to the Regulation 3 provides among other thing; in subparagraph 2(e) under the general heading of "Equipment":
"Work chair: the work chair shall be stable and allow the operator or user easy freedom of movement and a comfortable position. The seat shall be adjustable in height. The seat back shall be adjustable in both height and tilt."
Miss Trotman's chair was a rigid chair and could make none of those adjustments, that breach is admitted by the defendants.
In paragraph 27, HH Judge Dean says:
She was working in a small cramped room at unsuitable table, had an unsuitable chair, which was not capable of being adjusted as required by Regulation 3 of the DSE Regulations. She had to work as a result in an uncomfortable posture and no assessment of the work situation had been undertaken as the defendants were obliged to do under Regulation 2 of the DSE Regulations, it was only very late in the day that assessments were made by an occupational nurse, Nurse Ross. As far as I can see from the evidence, her recommendations do not seem to have been implemented; certainly not at first.
V1.01
| Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 | |
|---|---|
| Regulation 4 | Contextual Commentary | Trotman - v - London Borough of Tower Hamlets | Find Other Cases |
In this County Court Judgment on the 24th September 2002, in paragraph 22, HH Judge Dean says:
Regulation 4, of which breach is denied, provides as follows:
"Daily work routine of users: 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."
In paragraph 26, HH Judge Dean says:
By virtue of the amount of work that Miss Trotman was given she obviously had to take long and uninterrupted periods at a computer using the input devises of the keyboard and the mouse. The work was not varied as I have already found contrary to the suggestions in the Civil Evidence Act statement of Miss Robson. I find there was a clear breach of Regulation 4 as well as the other admitted breaches. Clearly no break pattern was established, the work did not have its natural breaks, there was the stress and pressure to work continuously, there was unsympathetic attitude taken by Mr Allen.
V1.02
| Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 | |
|---|---|
| Regulation 6 | Contextual Commentary | Trotman - v - London Borough of Tower Hamlets | Find Other Cases |
In this County Court Judgment on the 24th September 2002, in paragraph 23, HH Judge Dean says:
Regulation 6 is to do with training and obliges the employer to give proper and adequate training in instruction. Breach of that regulation is conceded.
In paragraph 28, HH Judge Dean says:
The defendants failed in breach of Regulations 6 and 7 of the DSE Regulations, and Regulations 8 and 9 of the 1992 equipment regulations to provide the claimant with any health or safety training or instruction. Had they done so, the claimant would at least have been in the position to be aware of the risks she was facing and perhaps have taken some steps to order her own activities with a view to reducing those risks. That would not have relieved the employer, the defendants, of their primary duty to ensure compliance with the regulations.
V1.01
| Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 | |
|---|---|
| Regulation 7 | Contextual Commentary | Trotman - v - London Borough of Tower Hamlets | Find Other Cases |
In this County Court Judgment on the 24th September 2002, in paragraph 24, HH Judge Dean says:
Regulation 7 is concerned with the provision of information to employees:
"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 workstations and (b) such measures taken by him in compliance with his duties under Regulations 2 and 3 as relate to them and their work ... "
A breach of that regulation is also admitted.
In paragraph 28, HH Judge Dean says:
The defendants failed in breach of Regulations 6 and 7 of the DSE Regulations, and Regulations 8 and 9 of the 1992 equipment regulations to provide the claimant with any health or safety training or instruction. Had they done so, the claimant would at least have been in the position to be aware of the risks she was facing and perhaps have taken some steps to order her own activities with a view to reducing those risks. That would not have relieved the employer, the defendants, of their primary duty to ensure compliance with the regulations.
V1.01
| Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 | |
|---|---|
| Trotman - v - London Borough of Tower Hamlets | Find Other Cases | |
In this County Court Judgment on the 24th September 2002, in paragraph 25, HH Judge Dean says:
In addition to the 1992 regulations, reliance was also placed upon the provision and use of work equipment regulations of 1992 and 1998, particularly Regulations 8 and 9 of the 1992 regulations. These emphasize in a more general sense the matters discussed in the DSE Regulations. Regulation 8 provides:
"Every employer should ensure that all persons who use work equipment have available to them adequate health and safety information, and where appropriate written instructions pertaining to the use of the work equipment."
Regulation 9 under the general heading "Training" provides:
"Every employer shall ensure that all persons who use work equipment have received adequate training for the purpose of health and safety, including training in the methods which may be adopted when using the work equipment any risks which such use may entail and the cautions to be taken"
In paragraph 28, HH Judge Dean says:
The defendants failed in breach of Regulations 6 and 7 of the DSE Regulations, and Regulations 8 and 9 of the 1992 equipment regulations to provide the claimant with any health or safety training or instruction. Had they done so, the claimant would at least have been in the position to be aware of the risks she was facing and perhaps have taken some steps to order her own activities with a view to reducing those risks. That would not have relieved the employer, the defendants, of their primary duty to ensure compliance with the regulations.
V1.01
Last updated: 14/05/2013