WORK EQUIPMENT

PRP Architects v Reid: [2006] EWCA Civ 1119

CA: Pill, Smith and Neuberger LJJ: 28 July 2006

The claimant was employed at office premises let to the employers on the second floor of a building consisting of separate units with different occupiers. When leaving the building after work by means of a lift the claimant suffered personal injuries caused by a defect in the lift. The judge at the county court held that the employers were liable for the injuries under regulation 5(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

The employers appealed.

The Court of Appeal held:
The expression "work equipment" as defined in regulation 2 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 should be given a broad construction and the word "installation" was capable of including a lift in a building. When leaving, at the end of the day's work, a lift located in the building where she worked the claimant was using the lift "at work" within the meaning of regulation 3(2). The employers were, therefore, in breach of the duty imposed by regulation 5(1) and were, accordingly, liable for the injuries suffered by the claimant.

The appeal was dismissed.

Appearances: Patrick Vincent (Berrymans Lace Mawer, Birmingham) for the defendant employers; Theodore Huckle (Cooks, Newcastle under Lyme) for the claimant.