WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales
References to and/or interpretations of Health and Safety Regulations - Lambeth - v - Bournemouth & Swanage Motor Road & Ferry Co
| Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 | |
|---|---|
| Contextual Commentary | Lambeth - v - Bournemouth & Swanage Motor Road & Ferry Co | Find Other Cases | |
In paragraph 20 of the Judgment on the 25th March 2004, HH Judge Hughes states:
At various times references have been made to a number of different statutory regulations. ...... I am also satisfied that the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 ("the DSE Regulations") do not apply to this action. [Counsel for the Claimant] has never suggested that either regulation applied to this action. The only relevance of the DSE Regulations are their inclusion in the report in April 2000 by [the Ergonomics Consultancy]. I consider that point later.
In paragraph 63 of the Judgment, HH Judge Hughes says:
Whilst [Counsel for the Claimant] accepted that the DSE Regulations do not apply to the toll booth he pointed out that most of the recommendations made by [the Ergonomics Consultancy] have nothing whatsoever to do with display screens. [Counsel for the Claimant] submitted:
"the report therefore offers the most reliable evidential platform from which to draw conclusions on the full extent of the risks in the activity that the claimant was required to undertake."
[Counsel for the Claimant] concluded this part of his argument by asserting that the report by [the Ergonomics Consultancy] was valuable evidence in assessing the relative merits of the evidence and opinions of [the Claimant's and the Defendant's Ergonomics Experts].
In paragraph 68 of the Judgment, HH Judge Hughes says:
......... the author of this report suggested that the DSE Regulations applied to the toll booths. It is agreed on all sides that this is wrong and these regulations do not apply. Although [Counsel for the Claimant] did his best to diminish the force of this mistake by correctly pointing out that the author could only have thought that the regulations applied to the console, it remains a fundamental error that must call into question the overall competence of those responsible for this report. [The Claimant's Ergonomics Expert] told me "Any competent ergonomist would have known that the VDU regulations did not apply. I was surprised to find that [the Ergonomics Consultancy] included it in their report." I would hesitate before making a finding of liability based on material prepared by less than "competent" ergonomists.
V1.02
| Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 | |
|---|---|
| Contextual Commentary | Lambeth - v - Bournemouth & Swanage Motor Road & Ferry Co | Find Other Cases | |
In paragraph 20 of the Judgment on the 25th March 2004, HH Judge Hughes states:
At various times references have been made to a number of different statutory regulations. I am satisfied that despite the terms of the particulars of claim .... the Manual Handling Regulations do not apply to this action.
V1.01
| Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 | |
|---|---|
| Lambeth - v - Bournemouth & Swanage Motor Road & Ferry Co | Find Other Cases | |
In paragraph 21 of the Judgment on the 25th March 2004, HH Judge Hughes states:
The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 do apply. Regulation 11 (1) requires that the work station should be "suitable" for the person using it. That provision is not one of strict liability. The meaning of "suitable" is not defined in the regulations. Both parties agreed and I am satisfied that the correct interpretation is as
a. This regulation imports the requirement that the workstation should be suitable for an employee in his known condition. It is obviously impossible for an employer to comply with an obligation to provide something "suitable" when unaware of what is necessary to comply with such a requirement.
b. Reasonable foreseeability is to be implied into such an obligation in order to give it proper efficacy within the English common law system of rights and responsibilities. I note in this connection that "suitable" is defined in Regulation 4 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 with an explicit requirement of reasonable foreseeability.
c. These regulations only apply to the toll booths after January 1996. It follows that the claimant's working period between 1993 and the end of 1995 is not covered
The agreed analysis of this provision confirms me in the conclusion that the statutory duties imposed on the defendant employer are broadly analogous to the existing common law duties. In other words, liability in negligence will be accompanied by a corresponding and equivalent liability for breach of this regulation. Similarly, an absence of liability in negligence will also mean no breach of the regulation.
V1.01
| Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 | |
|---|---|
| Lambeth - v - Bournemouth & Swanage Motor Road & Ferry Co | Find Other Cases | |
In paragraph 21 of the Judgment on the 25th March 2004, HH Judge Hughes states:
The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 do apply. Regulation 11 (1) requires that the work station should be "suitable" for the person using it. That provision is not one of strict liability. The meaning of "suitable" is not defined in the regulations. Both parties agreed and I am satisfied that the correct interpretation is as
a. This regulation imports the requirement that the workstation should be suitable for an employee in his known condition. It is obviously impossible for an employer to comply with an obligation to provide something "suitable" when unaware of what is necessary to comply with such a requirement.
b. Reasonable foreseeability is to be implied into such an obligation in order to give it proper efficacy within the English common law system of rights and responsibilities. I note in this connection that "suitable" is defined in Regulation 4 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 with an explicit requirement of reasonable foreseeability.
c. These regulations only apply to the toll booths after January 1996. It follows that the claimant's working period between 1993 and the end of 1995 is not covered
The agreed analysis of this provision confirms me in the conclusion that the statutory duties imposed on the defendant employer are broadly analogous to the existing common law duties. In other words, liability in negligence will be accompanied by a corresponding and equivalent liability for breach of this regulation. Similarly, an absence of liability in negligence will also mean no breach of the regulation.
V1.01
Last updated: 14/05/2013