0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Henser-Leather v Securicor Cash Services Ltd, Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), 16 May 2002

21 May 2002
The issues

Personal Protective Equipment of Work Regulations 1992 – body armour – security guards.

The facts

The Claimant was employed by Securicor. He drove a van and had available to him smoke boxes, a helmet and a visor. He had to collect cash. He was in the process of collecting cash from a petrol station and was leaving the shop with £4,900.00, when a robber demanded him to hand over the cash. He was shot in the stomach. He brought an action against Securicor for negligence and breach of statutory duty.

The Judge dismissed the Claimant’s case – the Claimant appealed.

The decision

1. Regulation 2 required an employer to provide personal protective equipment to protect a person “against one or more risks to his health and safety”. Regulation 4 was to the effect that the suitability and appropriateness of the equipment must not increase the overall risk to the wearer. Regulation 6 put a duty on the employer to ensure adequate assessment as to whether equipment should be provided and as to its suitability. In the circumstances, it was clear that Regulation 6 put an obligation on the employer to ensure that body armour was assessed and provided where necessary. On the facts, it appeared suitable body armour was available in 1995.

2. Regulation 10 put a duty on the employer to ensure that body armour was properly provided and used. The Judge had found that Securicor did not comply with Regulation 10. It was not therefore possible to conclude that the Claimant would not have used body armour had it been provided.

3. Body vests were available in 1995. The risk was a real one. The wearing of body armour would have reduced the seriousness of the injury. Judgment for the Claimant

focus on...

Legal updates

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.

View

Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.

View

Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up