Health & Safety: UK Developments

WORK EQUPIMENT. On 11 June, in Hammond v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Metropolitan Police Authority, the Court of Appeal determined whether equipment belonging to a third party which an employee was working on at the request of his employer, was covered by the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992.

A mechanic, employed by the Commissioner, was asked to repair a van that belonged to the Authority. He was injured when a bolt sheared off the van as he was working on it, causing him to fall. He claimed damages against the Commissioner and the Authority under Regulation 6 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992, which provides that every employer shall ensure that "work equipment" is maintained in an efficient state, efficient working order and good repair.

At trial, the judge held that the bolt was "work equipment" and found that the duty under Regulation 6 had been breached. The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that the Regulations are concerned with what may loosely be regarded as tools of the trade provided by an employer to an employee to enable the employee to carry out his work. It does not apply to an object which the employee is working on that has been provided by others.

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT. On 1 July, in Fytche v Wincanton Logistics Limited, the House of Lords considered the employer's duty to provide adequate protective equipment for employees.

Wincanton Logistics had provided Mr Fytche, a lorry driver who collected milk from farms, with steel capped safety boots. Mr Fytche suffered mild frostbite when one of the boots sprang a leak.

Under Regulation 7(1) of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, an employer has a duty to ensure that personal protective equipment provided to employees is maintained in an efficient state, efficient working order and good repair.

The House of Lords held by a majority that Mr Fytche had been provided with the boots because his employer considered there to be a risk of heavy objects falling on his feet in the course of his work. The boots were therefore personal protective equipment. A risk that required him to have waterproof boots was not identified. Regulation 7 had to be construed in relation to what made the boots personal protective equipment, ie the toecap, not the waterproofing. There was no defect in the steel toecap.

FIRE SAFETY. On 10 May, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2004 was laid before...