WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales

References to and/or interpretations of Health and Safety Regulations - Campbell-Weller -v- Omnicom Europe Ltd

Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
Regulation 2	Contextual Commentary | Campbell-Weller -v- Omnicom Europe Ltd | Find Other Cases

In this County Court Judgment on the 8th November 2010, at paragraph 56, HH Judge O'Brien said:

I find a breach of Regulation 2(2)(b) in that on 6th December 2003 there was a significant change in the matters to which the earlier analysis of the claimant's work station related - that is to say, the doubling of her work - but no review of that analysis. I find a breach of Regulation 2(3) in that the defendant failed to reduce the risks identified to the lowest step reasonably practicable ....... by reallocating less extra work to the claimant or by employing another person to help.

V1.01

Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
Regulation 4	Contextual Commentary | Campbell-Weller -v- Omnicom Europe Ltd | Find Other Cases

In this County Court Judgment on the 8th November 2010, at paragraph 55, HH Judge O'Brien said:

The history so far shows a story of an inconsistent approach by the defendant to the claimant's admitted problems at work. It is right that her work station was regularly assessed and her complaints were usually listened to. Sometimes (but not always) the advice of ergonomist and occupational medical experts was taken but, importantly, their advice about breaks and rotating work was not followed.

At paragraph 56, HH Judge O'Brien then said:

I find a breach of Regulation 4 in that the defendant failed so to plan the claimant's work as to interrupt it periodically by such breaks or changes of activities as would reduce her workload at the equipment.

V1.01

Last updated: 14/05/2013