WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales

References to and/or interpretations of Health and Safety Regulations - Goodwin (now Slevin) - v - Bennetts UK Ltd

Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
	Goodwin (now Slevin) - v - Bennetts UK Ltd | Find Other Cases

In the Judgment at first instance on the 4th January 2008, starting at H on page 27, HH Judge Dixon states:

[Counsel for the Claimant] accepted that she must still prove a causative link between the breaches and any loss, and he himself helpfully reminded me of the Health and Safety Act 1974 at section 47(2), which provides as follows:

"Breach of a duty imposed by Health and Safety Regulations shall, so as it causes damage be actionable except in so far as Regulations provide otherwise."

So it is in my judgment quite clear that once breach is proved damages follow only upon further proof that the loss was actually caused by the breach.

V2.01

Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
	Contextual Commentary | Goodwin (now Slevin) - v - Bennetts UK Ltd | Find Other Cases

In the Judgment at first instance on the 4th January 2008, at D on page 2, HH Judge Dixon states:

... [Mrs Slevin] contends that the defendants as her employers were in breach of their statutory duty under the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992, (which from now on for convenience I will refer to as the 1992 Regulations) ..

and at F on page 2:

[The Defendant] deny that any obligations arose under the 1992 Regulations, and even if they did that any breaches would have made no difference; and further, and in any event, that any breaches were not causative of the injuries which Mrs Slevin complained of.

At E on page 22, HH Judge Dixon states:

I do not propose to recite for the purpose of this judgment the contents of the relevant Regulations, but it perhaps suffices to say that in considering them I have noted and taken into account the amendments to Regulation 6, effected by the Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002, effective from 17th September 2002.

At A on page 27, HH Judge Dixon states:

In this case the 1992 Regulations, 2, 4, 6 and 7, are each of them drafted in mandatory terms. There appears to be no scope for avoidance of the primary obligations imposed through compliance so far as reasonably practicable, nor is there implicit in the wording any requirement or need to undertake a preliminary risk assessment. It seems to me that those Regulations impose clear and unequivocal obligations on those to whom they apply, and that includes the defendants in this case.

At E on page 33, HH Judge Dixon states:

At the end of it however, ..... I do not find any basis upon which it can safely be said that had they complied with the 1992 Regulations and had they been aware generally of work related upper limb disorders that they would have acted differently towards Mrs Slevin's work. Even if they had done so, for example, by giving her more information about the risk of work related upper limb disorders, or by insisting she took a one hour break, or by implementing the bonus system more carefully, I do not consider on the evidence that I have heard that it would have made any difference to what I find actually happened; .....

In the Court of Appeal Judgment on the 11th December 2008, at paragraph 3, Lord Justice Jackson states:

I shall refer to the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 as 'the 1992 Regulations'

and goes on to quote from the pertinent parts of regulations 1, 2, 4, 6 & 7.

V2.01

Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
Regulation 1	Contextual Commentary | Goodwin (now Slevin) - v - Bennetts UK Ltd | Find Other Cases

In the Judgment at first instance on the 4th January 2008, at G on page 22, HH Judge Dixon states:

It was not in dispute that on the face of it the 1992 Regulations applied to the defendants' undertaking and workplaces and to the work which Mrs Slevin was required to undertake.

In the Court of Appeal Judgment on the 11th December 2008, at paragraph 37, Lord Justice Jackson states:

As to the first ground of appeal, there is no dispute that the 1992 Regulations were applicable to the claimant's employment. The claimant was an employee of the defendant, who used a workstation for the purposes of the defendant's business.

V2.01

Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
Regulation 2	Contextual Commentary | Goodwin (now Slevin) - v - Bennetts UK Ltd | Find Other Cases

In the Judgment at first instance on the 4th January 2008, at A on page 27, HH Judge Dixon states:

In this case the 1992 Regulations, 2, 4, 6 and 7, are each of them drafted in mandatory terms. There appears to be no scope for avoidance of the primary obligations imposed through compliance so far as reasonably practicable, nor is there implicit in the wording any requirement or need to undertake a preliminary risk assessment. It seems to me that those Regulations impose clear and unequivocal obligations on those to whom they apply, and that includes the defendants in this case.

At B on page 27, HH Judge Dixon states:

... on the evidence I find that the defendants did not perform an analysis of Mrs Slevin's workstation as required by Regulation 2.

At E on page 33, HH Judge Dixon states:

At the end of it however, ..... I do not find any basis upon which it can safely be said that had they complied with the 1992 Regulations and had they been aware generally of work related upper limb disorders that they would have acted differently towards Mrs Slevin's work. Even if they had done so, for example, by giving her more information about the risk of work related upper limb disorders, or by insisting she took a one hour break, or by implementing the bonus system more carefully, I do not consider on the evidence that I have heard that it would have made any difference to what I find actually happened; ....

In the Court of Appeal Judgment on the 11th December 2008, at paragraph 52, Lord Justice Jackson states:

I turn now to the third ground of appeal. The claimant here challenges the judge's conclusion that the defendant's breaches of regulations 2, 6 and 7 of the 1992 Regulations had no causative effect. In relation to regulation 2, I agree with the judge's conclusion. Up until November 2002 the defendant undertook no analysis of the claimant's workstation. However, it is clear from the evidence that if any analysis had been undertaken, it would have led to the conclusion that the claimant's workstation was satisfactory. The defendant did undertake such an analysis in November 2002 and so at that time the defendant's breach of regulation 2 came to an end.

V2.01

Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
Regulation 4	Contextual Commentary | Goodwin (now Slevin) - v - Bennetts UK Ltd | Find Other Cases

In the Judgment at first instance on the 4th January 2008, at A on page 27, HH Judge Dixon states:

In this case the 1992 Regulations, 2, 4, 6 and 7, are each of them drafted in mandatory terms. There appears to be no scope for avoidance of the primary obligations imposed through compliance so far as reasonably practicable, nor is there implicit in the wording any requirement or need to undertake a preliminary risk assessment. It seems to me that those Regulations impose clear and unequivocal obligations on those to whom they apply, and that includes the defendants in this case.

At C on page 27, HH Judge Dixon states:

So far as the obligation to plan her daily routine as required by Regulation 4 is concerned, I find the position to be less clear-cut. The purpose of Regulation 4 is to require employers specifically to direct their attention to the need for employees not to spend unbroken periods of time at their display screens. I am not satisfied that the defendants did specifically direct their attention to this in Mrs Slevin's case, but that said, in my judgment the evidence showed firstly that the breaks she in fact was afforded were reasonable; 45 minutes in the middle of the working day, 15 minutes at other times, and breaks to enable her to obtain refreshments or necessarily to have a comfort break. And secondly, her work whilst involving screen work, did not require her to sit continuously at a display screen, but also involved some telephone work and other clerical and administrative work. In the circumstances therefore I do not find that Mrs Slevin has proved that the defendants were in breach of their duty under Regulation 4.

At E on page 33, HH Judge Dixon states:

At the end of it however, ..... I do not find any basis upon which it can safely be said that had they complied with the 1992 Regulations and had they been aware generally of work related upper limb disorders that they would have acted differently towards Mrs Slevin's work. Even if they had done so, for example, by giving her more information about the risk of work related upper limb disorders, or by insisting she took a one hour break, or by implementing the bonus system more carefully, I do not consider on the evidence that I have heard that it would have made any difference to what I find actually happened; ....

In the Court of Appeal Judgment on the 11th December 2008, at paragraphs 37 to 42, Lord Justice Jackson states:

As to the first ground of appeal, there is no dispute that the 1992 Regulations were applicable to the claimant's employment. The claimant was an employee of the defendant, who used a workstation for the purposes of the defendant's business. Accordingly regulation 4 of the 1992 Regulations imposed upon the defendant a duty to plan the claimant's activities so that her daily work on the display screen equipment was periodically interrupted by such breaks or changes of activity as would reduce her workload at that equipment.

It is clear from the evidence at trial that the defendant did not comply with regulation 4. Indeed the defendant was unaware of the existence of the 1992 Regulations. The defendant never devised any plan for the claimant, which would meet the requirements of regulation 4. All employers of staff who use display screen equipment should be aware of the 1992 Regulations and should take steps to comply with those regulations.

The crucial question which I have to address is whether the defendant's breach of regulation 4 had any causative effect. If the defendant in or before May 2002 had set about devising a plan to comply with regulation 4, the defendant would have taken into consideration the following three facts:

(i) The claimant only used the keyboard to a moderate extent in relation to her work on renewals: see part 4 above.

(ii) The claimant was entitled to a one hour break during the day. The claimant could take this break at lunch time. Alternatively the claimant could take a 45 minute break at lunch time plus a further break or breaks totally 15 minutes at other times: see the judge's findings at page 4 of the judgment, which were open to him on the basis of Mr Burton's evidence.

(iii) As the judge found at pages 4 and 18 of the judgment, the claimant had a number of other tasks to do during the day which did not involve keyboard work. Examples of such tasks were making telephone calls, dealing with post and general administration. The judge was entitled to make these findings on the basis of the claimant's evidence and the evidence of Mr Burton.

In my view, the claimant's daily routine was such that it was in practice interrupted by such breaks or changes of activity as would reduce her workload on the display screen equipment.

There was some discussion at the hearing as to whether, in effect, the defendant had inadvertently complied with regulation 4. I was initially attracted to that analysis. I have, however, come to the conclusion that that analysis is not correct. Regulation 4 required the defendant to plan the activities of the claimant in a particular way. The defendant did not plan the claimant's activities at all, but instead left the claimant to her own devices at an office some distance away from her manager. The correct analysis is that the defendant was in breach of regulation 4, but that breach had no causative effect. If the defendant had set about devising a plan as required by regulation 4, such plan would not have required any material change to the claimant's existing routine.

V2.01

Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
Regulations 6 & 7	Contextual Commentary | Goodwin (now Slevin) - v - Bennetts UK Ltd | Find Other Cases

In the Judgment at first instance on the 4th January 2008, at E on page 22, HH Judge Dixon states:

I do not propose to recite for the purpose of this judgment the contents of the relevant Regulations, but it perhaps suffices to say that in considering them I have noted and taken into account the amendments to Regulation 6, effected by the Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002, effective from 17th September 2002.

At A on page 27, HH Judge Dixon states:

In this case the 1992 Regulations, 2, 4, 6 and 7, are each of them drafted in mandatory terms. There appears to be no scope for avoidance of the primary obligations imposed through compliance so far as reasonably practicable, nor is there implicit in the wording any requirement or need to undertake a preliminary risk assessment. It seems to me that those Regulations impose clear and unequivocal obligations on those to whom they apply, and that includes the defendants in this case.

At B on page 27, HH Judge Dixon states:

...... on the evidence I find that the defendants did not .... provide Mrs Slevin with training or information as required by Regulations 6 and 7.

At E on page 33, HH Judge Dixon states:

At the end of it however, ..... I do not find any basis upon which it can safely be said that had they complied with the 1992 Regulations and had they been aware generally of work related upper limb disorders that they would have acted differently towards Mrs Slevin's work. Even if they had done so, for example, by giving her more information about the risk of work related upper limb disorders, or by insisting she took a one hour break, or by implementing the bonus system more carefully, I do not consider on the evidence that I have heard that it would have made any difference to what I find actually happened; ....

In the Court of Appeal Judgment on the 11th December 2008, at paragraphs 53 to 54, Lord Justice Jackson states:

I turn now to regulations 6 and 7. The defendant at no time complied with its obligation under these regulations to provide information and training to the claimant about how to use her workstation without suffering personal injury. In respect of the period up to November 2002, I agree with the judge's conclusion that these breaches had no causative effect. Even if the defendant had provided proper training and information, no-one would have expected the claimant's moderate use of the keyboard to be causing personal injury.

In respect of the period after November 2002, the position was transformed for the reasons which I have set out above. If the defendant had provided proper information and training to the claimant, it would at once have become apparent that the claimant's keyboard use needed to be further reduced. I therefore conclude that the defendant's breaches of regulations 6 and 7 caused the recurrence of the claimant's symptoms in early 2003. If the defendant had provided proper information and training in and after November 2002, the keyboard use by the claimant would have been substantially less than 25-30 renewals per day. The consequence would have been that the recurrence of the claimant's symptoms in January 2003 would not have occurred.

V2.01

Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002
	Goodwin (now Slevin) - v - Bennetts UK Ltd | Find Other Cases

In the Judgment at first instance on the 4th January 2008, at E on page 22, HH Judge Dixon makes reference to changes in the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 brought about by the Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002:

I do not propose to recite for the purpose of this judgment the contents of the relevant Regulations, but it perhaps suffices to say that in considering them I have noted and taken into account the amendments to Regulation 6, effected by the Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002, effective from 17th September 2002.

V1.01

Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
	Contextual Commentary | Goodwin (now Slevin) - v - Bennetts UK Ltd | Find Other Cases

In the Judgment at first instance on the 4th January 2008, at F on page 10, HH Judge Dixon states:

....... it was also pleaded that the defendants were in breach of duties under the Manual Handling Operations 1992, although that claim was abandoned at the outset of the trial.

V2.01

Last updated: 14/05/2013