Smith v Northamptonshire County Council: [2008] EWCA Civ 181

CA: Waller, Richards and Rimer LJJ: 11 March 2008

The claimant was employed by the defendant council as a carer. She regularly collected a client, who was a wheelchair user, from her home to take her for day care. Wheelchair access to the client’s property was by way of a wooden ramp installed by the NHS. The claimant was injured when the edge of the ramp gave way while she was pushing the wheelchair along the ramp. She sought damages for personal injury from the council, alleging, inter alia, that the council was in breach of regulation 5(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 by failing to maintain the ramp in an efficient state or in good repair. The judge found that the ramp was “work equipment” and equipment “used by an employee at work” within regulations 2(1) and 3(2) and that there had been a breach of regulation 5(1).

The council appealed.

The Court of Appeal held:
“Work equipment” as defined by regulations 2(1) and 3(2) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 included an item supplied by a third party which an employer was allowing his employee to use at work and over which the employer had sufficient control to enable him to discharge the obligations imposed by the Regulations. Each case turned on its own facts, and, in the present case, where the ramp was part of someone else’s property, had been installed by a third party as a permanent fixture and was used most of the time by persons other than the council’s employees, the council had no control over the ramp sufficient to enable it to perform the obligation as to its maintenance imposed by regulation 5(1). Accordingly, the ramp was not “work equipment” used by the claimant at work for the purposes of the Regulations and there was no breach of the duty by the council.

The appeal was allowed.

Appearances: Hugh Preston (Shoosmiths, Northampton) for the council; Antony Berrisford (Thompsons, Nottingham) for the claimant.