WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales

References to and/or interpretations of Health and Safety Regulations - Cowley -v- The Stroke Association

Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
	Contextual Commentary | Cowley -v- The Stroke Association | Find Other Cases

In this County Court Judgment on the 1st July 2010, at paragraph 5, HH Judge Hampton says:

As the claimant's work involved using computers and display screens the Workplace Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations 1992 and the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 applied to her employment. There is no dispute about that. The latter Regulations impose various duties on employers which are relevant to this action - first of all to carry out risk assessments - Regulation 2; planning for routine breaks where people are engaged in keyboard work - Regulation 4; the provision of health and safety training and health and safety information - Regulation 6 and 7; and a duty to arrange a workstation suitable for the particular employee. The application of the Regulations is admitted but there is an issue as to the extent to which the claimant's work was particularly repetitive and, of course, an issue as to whether such breaches of statutory duty, as have been admitted, were in fact the cause of her present predicament.

V1.01

Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
Regulation 1	Contextual Commentary | Cowley -v- The Stroke Association | Find Other Cases

In this County Court Judgment on the 1st July 2010, at paragraph 5, HH Judge Hampton says:

As the claimant's work involved using computers and display screens the Workplace Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations 1992 and the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 applied to her employment. There is no dispute about that. The latter Regulations impose various duties on employers which are relevant to this action.

V1.01

Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
Regulation 2	Contextual Commentary | Cowley -v- The Stroke Association | Find Other Cases

In this County Court Judgment on the 1st July 2010, at paragraph 6, HH Judge Hampton says:

The defendants admitted in their defence a breach of Regulation 2 (that is the regular carrying out of risk assessments) and Regulation 4 (specific planning for breaks).

In paragraphs 7 & 8, HH Judge Hampton says:

Miss D, who I found refreshingly candid in her evidence, told me that insofar as her duties as dealing with health and safety in the defendants' organisation she did not carry out any risk assessments until 2003, some three years into the claimant's employment, because she simply did not feel that she had the skills to do those effectively. Whilst that is a little surprising, given that they were employing clerical workers, who were using computer equipment to carry out the tasks of their employment, the defendants might be criticised for not keeping themselves up to date with the requirements of modern legislation. Such criticism does not, of course, mean that they are to be found liable for the claimant's misfortune, unless she is able to prove that such deficiencies as there were in the defendants' systems, have caused her condition. Further had the defendants complied with the letter and the spirit of the Regulations, that something different would have occurred, which would have avoided the predicament in which she now finds herself.

The first of the risk assessments that was carried out was carried out in summer 2003. The claimant was not at work when it was carried out; whether she was on holiday or possibly off sick is not recorded and is perhaps not important. No attempt was made to reschedule that risk assessment, until the claimant went to see her doctor on 30th October 2003 with a ganglion on her right wrist - the medical notes say left wrist but I think it is accepted that that was a mistake - and at some point either during, or as a result of, her consultation with her general practitioner, the question of repetitive strain injury arose. The claimant, of course, had no training and no information at that stage about repetitive strain injury, a term which is now disapproved of, but most people know what it means. There is a health and safety leaflet about this, apparently published by the Health and Safety Executive, and Miss D told me that it was on the staff room notice board, but no one drew the claimant's attention to it and she was not provided with a copy for herself.

In paragraph 20, HH Judge Hampton says:

Breach of Regulation 2 is admitted, so is breach of Regulation 4. However, I find on the balance of probabilities on the facts as I find them to be that, had those duties been complied with, there would not have been any difference to the claimant's working environment, or the facts which occurred between 2003 and 2005.

V1.01

Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
Regulation 4	Contextual Commentary | Cowley -v- The Stroke Association | Find Other Cases

In this County Court Judgment on the 1st July 2010, at paragraph 6, HH Judge Hampton says:

The defendants admitted in their defence a breach of Regulation 2 (that is the regular carrying out of risk assessments) and Regulation 4 (specific planning for breaks). In relation to that it is asserted, both in the pleadings and in the evidence, that the claimant's tasks were varied and therefore there were naturally breaks in keyboard activity, because she would be doing filing, sorting out documents for banking and so forth. Accordingly, it was not necessary to allow the formal sort of breaks that are necessarily required, in institutions or organisations, that operate typing pools. One of the experts on ergonomics referred to these as "high technology sweatshops", where those who are working on keyboards, effectively, are doing very little else all day but audio typing. They get up to very considerable speeds and spend very considerable time seated at a workstation, typing. In such organisations formal breaks must be planned for, whether by using software that is available for computer users or other methods, breaks which are necessary in order to avoid fatigue. Of course, the Regulations are directed not only to injuries caused by repetitive movement but also to discomfort caused by having to look at a screen all day and also being seated.

In paragraph 20, HH Judge Hampton says:

Breach of Regulation 2 is admitted, so is breach of Regulation 4. However, I find on the balance of probabilities on the facts as I find them to be that, had those duties been complied with, there would not have been any difference to the claimant's working environment, or the facts which occurred between 2003 and 2005.

V1.01

Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
Regulation 6 & 7	Contextual Commentary | Cowley -v- The Stroke Association | Find Other Cases

In this County Court Judgment on the 1st July 2010, at paragraph 6, HH Judge Hampton says:

It has been conceded, in the course of the case, that the claimant was not provided with specific training or information and accordingly the defendants' counsel very sensibly concedes breach of Regulation 6 and 7.

In paragraph 8, HH Judge Hampton says:

....... at some point either during, or as a result of, her consultation with her general practitioner, the question of repetitive strain injury arose. The claimant, of course, had no training and no information at that stage about repetitive strain injury, a term which is now disapproved of, but most people know what it means. There is a health and safety leaflet about this, apparently published by the Health and Safety Executive, and Miss D told me that it was on the staff room notice board, but no one drew the claimant's attention to it and she was not provided with a copy for herself.

In paragraph 20, HH Judge Hampton says:

So far as the allegations with regard to Regulation 6 and 7 are concerned, those have been conceded and I find that placing a booklet in a staff room is not adequate; indeed had those breaches not been conceded I would have found the defendants in breach. However, for the reasons that I have already given, I have come to the conclusion that the course of the history of this case, on the balance of probabilities, would not have been any different. Even if the claimant had had further information, whilst she might have gone to her doctor a little earlier than she actually did, she would have continued to work for the defendants and because of the findings that I make on medical causation, it would not have affected the eventual outcome to this case.

V1.01

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
	Cowley -v- The Stroke Association | Find Other Cases

In this County Court Judgment on the 1st July 2010, at paragraph 5, HH Judge Hampton says:

As the claimant's work involved using computers and display screens the Workplace Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations 1992 and the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 applied to her employment. There is no dispute about that.

V1.01

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
Regulation 11	Cowley -v- The Stroke Association | Find Other Cases

In this County Court Judgment on the 1st July 2010, at paragraph 21, HH Judge Hampton says:

So far as the allegation that there was a breach of Regulation 11 of the Workplace Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations 1992 with regard to the workstation, that breach is not proved. That much is to be established by looking at the joint ergonomists' report ......

V1.01

Last updated: 14/05/2013