0370 270 6000

R v East Sussex County Council and The Disability Rights Commission Ex Parte A, Queens Bench Division Administrative Court

14 March 2003
The issues

Health and safety – care workers – disabled persons – Manual Handling – Risk Assessment – a reasonable practicability.

The facts

An Application had been made for judicial review of the Local Authority’s Policy not to permit care staff to lift two of the Claimants manually. Both Claimants suffered from profound physical and learning disabilities and had greatly impaired mobility. Within the Application, a Trial was fixed as to the following issue namely:-

(i) The legality of the Application of the Local Authority’s general policy on manual lifting of disabled persons to the Claimants and;

(ii) The draft Protocols produced by the Local Authority.

The decision

1. The statutory regime was intended to avoid hazardous manual lifting insofar as that was reasonably practicable and insofar as it was in the best interests of the disabled person, including matters relating to his dignity, his independence and his human rights.

2. The statutory regime also recognised that it was not always reasonably practicable to avoid a particular risk or to reduce it as much as might otherwise be appropriate.

3. In assessing what was reasonably practicable, the relevant factors were:-

a. The possible methods of avoiding the risk;
b. The context;
c. The risk to the employee;
d. The physical, emotional, psychological and social impact upon the disabled person.

The employer had to balance the impact on both the carer and the disabled person of the various alternatives that had been assessed.

4. If striking the balance it came down in favour of manual handling, then the employer had to make a risk assessment and take all steps to minimise the risks of the manual handling operation.

5. At this point the Local Authority had not yet completed its assessments. It was not for the Court to say to the Local Authority what assessments to make. It could assist by identifying the relevant legal principles. Since the assessments had not been completed, the Application was premature.

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