PRP Architects v Reid

The respondent was using the lift at work within the meaning of Regulation 3(2) of the 1998 Regulations when injured, and the lift constituted work equipment for which the employer was liable under Regulation 5(1), despite not having exclusive control or ownership, as it was a means of access and egress provided for employees' use under the lease.

Parties: Appellant: PRP Architects; Respondent: Precious Reid
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 28 July 2006
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court on Liability Only
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Employer's Statutory Duty, Work Equipment, Personal Injury at Work, Interpretation of Statutory Regulations

Employment Law Health and Safety Law Employer's Statutory Duty Work Equipment Personal Injury at Work Interpretation of Statutory Regulations

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

PRP Architects

Appellant

Precious Reid

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court on Liability Only

Legal Issues

1 Whether the lift constituted 'work equipment' under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
2 Whether the respondent was 'at work' when injured using the lift after leaving her office
3 Whether the employer had statutory liability for injury caused by defective equipment not exclusively under their control

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

Judgment for the respondent stands; employer liable for breach of statutory duty under the 1998 Regulations