WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales

References to and/or interpretations of Health and Safety Regulations - Warlow -v- Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
	Warlow -v- Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd | Find Other Cases

In the Judgment on the 22nd December 2008, at paragraph 45, HH Judge Vosper QC states:

At sub-paragraph (d) it is alleged there was "A failure to carry out any or any suitable or sufficient risk assessment as required by Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999." On my findings with respect to the facts of this case, that more general requirement for a risk assessment adds nothing to the requirement under Regulation 4(1)(b)(i) of the 1992 [Manual Handling Operations] regulations with which I have already dealt.

V1.02

Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
	Contextual Commentary | Warlow -v- Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd | Find Other Cases

In paragraph 36 of the Judgment on the 22nd December 2008, HH Judge Vosper QC states:

The Particulars of Claim at paragraph 4 allege that the claimant's injury was caused by breach of statutory duty and/or negligence by the defendant. The breach of statutory duty relied upon is a breach of the duty imposed by the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992.

V1.02

Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
Regulation 4	Contextual Commentary | Warlow -v- Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd | Find Other Cases

In the Judgment on the 22nd December 2008, at paragraphs 36 & 37, HH Judge Vosper QC states:

The first allegation, at paragraph (a), is that "The claimant was required to carry out a manual handling operation which could reasonably have been avoided." That is based upon Regulation 4(1)(a) of the Manual Handling Operations which provides "Each employer shall, so far as is reasonab1y practicable, avoid the need for his employee to undertake any manual handling operations at work which involve a risk of their being injured." It is accepted by both ergonomists, and plainly right, that there was no mechanical means of carrying out the job which the claimant was required to carry out and accordingly particu1ar (a) of the pleaded case based upon Regulation 4(1)(a) is not made out.

HH Judge Vosper QC then says, at paragraphs 38 to 43:

Regulation 4(1)(b)(i) provides as follows: "Where it is not reasonably practicable to avoid the need for his employees to undertake any manual handling operations at work which involve a risk of their being injured, [the employee] shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of all such manual handling operations to be undertaken by them", having regard to factors specified in schedule 1 to the regulations and considering questions specified in column 2 of that schedule.

In this case, no assessment was carried out. [The Ergonomics Expert instructed by the Defendant] says that there was no need for an assessment here because the weight lifted did not of itself give rise to the need for such an assessment by reference to general guidance issued by the Health and Safety Executive. That is not to say that there is no risk of injury but that the risk of injury was not such as to give rise to the need for a detailed assessment. [The Ergonomics Expert instructed by the Claimant] takes a different view. The manual handling operations which the claimant was required to undertake, he says, were not confined to lifting these cones. He was also required to move signs and barriers used for directing traffic when roadworks were being carried out. What was required was an assessment of the job as a whole. For the reason given by [the Ergonomics Expert instructed by the Claimant], I find that an assessment should have been undertaken of the manual handling which the claimant was required to undertake. That assessment would not have been directed solely to the act of lifting the cones but would have included it.

Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim alleges that "The defendants caused or permitted the claimant to lift the cone without first carrying out a suitable and sufficient assessment of such manual lifting operations, in accordance with Regulation 4(1)(b) of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations." That allegation is therefore made out, in my judgment, but I have next to consider what the outcome of such an assessment would have been so far as lifting these cones is concerned. I am satisfied that such an assessment would have concluded that lifting cones into this Toyota vehicle, in the way in which the claimant lifted them but with the tail-gate lowered, presented no significant risk of injury - by that I mean no legally significant risk. I have in mind the guidance on this question of Lady Justice Hale in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Koonjul -v- Thameslink Healthcare Services [2000] Personal Injury and Quantum Reports, p.123. The assessment, if carried out, would have resulted in no more than an instruction to employees to ensure that they lowered the tail-gate before putting cones into the vehicle and, if it was necessary to add this further instruction, that if the tail-gate could not be lowered then they were not to use the vehicle for that purpose.

HH Judge Vosper QC then says at paragraph 44:

Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim is as follows, that "The defendants failed to take any or any appropriate steps to reduce the risk of injury arising from the lifting operation to the lowest level reasonably practicable." That is based upon Regulation 4(1)(b)(ii) of the 1992 Regulations which requires the defendants to do precisely that. It follows, however, on the findings I have already made, that that requirement would have been satisfied in the context of this particular lifting operation by an instruction in the terms which I have already identified as an instruction to ensure that the tail-gate was lowered before cones were loaded on to the vehicle.

V1.02

Last updated: 14/05/2013