WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales

References to and/or interpretations of Health and Safety Regulations - Finn -v-T H Motson & Co Ltd

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
Regulation 3	Finn -v-T H Motson & Co Ltd | Find Other Cases

In his Judgment on the 18th March 2010, Mr Recorder Barnett says:

The claimant relies upon Regulation 3 and Regulation 10 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, 1999. Regulation 3(1) provides:

Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of-
(a) The risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work.

The failure to undertake a risk assessment cannot found a claim as a stand alone allegation, causation must be proved, Spencer v Boots the Chemist [2000] EWCA Civ 1691.

Mr Recorder Barnett makes no explicit finding in his Judgment with respect to regulation 3.

V1.02

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
Regulation 10	Finn -v-T H Motson & Co Ltd | Find Other Cases

In his Judgment on the 18th March 2010, Mr Recorder Barnett says:

The claimant relies upon Regulation 3 and Regulation 10 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, 1999.........

Regulation 10 provides:

(1) Every employer shall provide his employee with comprehensive and relevant information on

a. The risks to their health and safety identified by the assessments:

b. The preventative and protective measures.

Mr Recorder Barnett found that:

There is an obligation under regulation 10 and at common law, to ensure that the employee has been provided with information about Health and Safety and the measures to take. There was a failure to provide the Claimant with this information which contributed to the symptoms that he experienced over this period of time. That the Claimant did complain in June 2005 of matters consistent with work related issues, as he felt numbness and pins and needles whilst at work and 'less trouble' at weekends and that this was such an account that would have led [the Medical Expert instructed by the Defendant] to agree that the Claimant's symptoms had been aggravated by his work. Had proper information been given to the Claimant, he would have complained about his symptoms in June 2004. Had he complained in June 2004, the probable consequence would have been that the Defendant would have taken steps at that time, more than they took in November 2004. These steps would have further reduced the Claimant's exposure. I do not find that he would have been removed completely.

V1.03

Last updated: 14/05/2013