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

Forgotten your password?

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

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.

View

Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.

View

Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.

View

Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.

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