Health And Safety At Work: Is A Door Closer “Work Equipment”?

A simple door-closing device was the focus of the recent

judgement of the House of Lords in the case of Peter

Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown & Root and others [2008]

UKHL 46. The case has established that a door closing

device (here used to ensure that the door of the control room

on an offshore installation was closed) was "work

equipment" in terms of Regulation 2 of the Provision and

Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 ("PUWER").

The case concerned an incident that occurred on 12 October

2003 whilst the Appellant was employed by Kellogg Brown &

Root ("KBR") under contract for services to the

operator of a North Sea installation. As part of the

Appellant's work activities, he was asked to inspect a

door-closer on the installation and repair it. When the

appellant tried to inspect the door closer, a screw became

disengaged from it and struck the appellant in the face,

causing him personal injury. The Appellant brought a claim in

Aberdeen Sheriff Court claiming both his employers (KBR) and

the operator of the installation, were in breach of their

duties under PUWER. The House of Lords were asked to consider

whether the door closer was work equipment for the purpose of

PUWER.

To view the article in full, please see

below:

Full Article

A simple door-closing device was the focus of the recent

judgement of the House of Lords in the case of Peter

Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown & Root and others [2008]

UKHL 46. The case has established that a door closing

device (here used to ensure that the door of the control room

on an offshore installation was closed) was "work

equipment" in terms of Regulation 2 of the Provision and

Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 ("PUWER").

The case concerned an incident that occurred on 12 October

2003 whilst the Appellant was employed by Kellogg Brown &

Root ("KBR") under contract for services to the

operator of a North Sea installation. As part of the

Appellant's work activities, he was asked to inspect a

door-closer on the installation and repair it. When the

appellant tried to inspect the door closer, a screw became

disengaged from it and struck the appellant in the face,

causing him personal injury. The Appellant brought a claim in

Aberdeen Sheriff Court claiming both his employers (KBR) and

the operator of the installation, were in breach of their

duties under PUWER. The House of Lords were asked to consider

whether the door closer was work equipment for the purpose of

PUWER.

Regulation 2(1) of PUWER defines...