0370 270 6000

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

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.

View

Blogs

Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.

View

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

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