Threlfall v Hull City Council

Threlfall v Hull City Council

The claimant failed to establish that his injury was caused by a breach of Regulation 4 because it was unclear how the injury occurred and there was no evidence that the gloves were unsuitable based on risk assessment and experience. The employer was entitled to conclude that standard gloves were appropriate and effective for the risks involved.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mr Steven Threlfall; Defendant/respondent: Hull City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Personal Protective Equipment, Employer's Duty of Care, Workplace Injury, Risk Assessment
Employment Law Health and Safety Law Personal Protective Equipment Employer's Duty of Care Workplace Injury Risk Assessment

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Steven Threlfall

Claimant/appellant

Hull City Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer breached Regulation 4 of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 by failing to provide suitable gloves
  2. 2 Whether the injury was caused by unsuitable protective equipment

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish that his injury was caused by a breach of Regulation 4 because it was unclear how the injury occurred and there was no evidence that the gloves were unsuitable based on risk assessment and experience. The employer was entitled to conclude that standard gloves were appropriate and effective for the risks involved.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed