Hammond v Commissioner Of Police For Metropolis & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 830 (11 June 2004)

Hammond v Commissioner Of Police For Metropolis & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 830 (11 June 2004)

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 do not extend to objects worked upon by employees, such as a wheel bolt on a police van, unless such objects are provided by the employer as equipment for use in the employee's work. The strict liability imposed by Regulation 6 applies only to equipment provided by the employer for use by employees, not to items merely worked upon. Therefore, the wheel bolt was not 'work equipment' under the Regulations, and the employer was not strictly liable for the claimant's injury caused by its failure.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 830
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Terry Hammond; First Defendant/first Appellant: Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis; Second Defendant/second Appellant: Metropolitan Police Authority; Third Defendant: Master South London Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Judgment on Liability Only
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992, Employer's Liability, Strict Liability, Definition of Work Equipment, Contributory Negligence
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Personal Injury Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 Employer's Liability Strict Liability Definition of Work Equipment Contributory Negligence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terry Hammond

Claimant/respondent

Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

First Defendant/first Appellant

Metropolitan Police Authority

Second Defendant/second Appellant

Master South London Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Judgment on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a wheel bolt on a police van constitutes 'work equipment' under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992
  2. 2 Whether the employer is strictly liable for injury caused by a defect in such equipment
  3. 3 Whether the regulations apply to objects worked upon or only to equipment provided for use by employees

Ratio Decidendi

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 do not extend to objects worked upon by employees, such as a wheel bolt on a police van, unless such objects are provided by the employer as equipment for use in the employee's work. The strict liability imposed by Regulation 6 applies only to equipment provided by the employer for use by employees, not to items merely worked upon. Therefore, the wheel bolt was not 'work equipment' under the Regulations, and the employer was not strictly liable for the claimant's injury caused by its failure.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant against the first and second defendants set aside to the extent based on breach of statutory duty under Regulation 6 of the 1992 Regulations
  • No liability under the Regulations for injury caused by the wheel bolt