0370 270 6000

Fytche v Wincanton Logistics Plc, Court of Appeal, 12 May 2003

1 July 2003
The issues

Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 – boots – fitness

The facts

The Claimant was a Heavy Goods Vehicle driver who collected milk from farms at night. He was provided with steel-cap safety boots. There was a small hole in his right boot where the steel-cap met the sole. He suffered frostbite one night in the little toe of his right foot. He claimed from his employer, alleging amongst other things, that the employer was in breach of Regulation 7(i) of the 1992 Regulations, which imposed an absolute duty on the employer to keep personal protective equipment in efficient working order and good repair. The Recorder dismissed the claim. The Judge to whom the Claimant appealed also dismissed the claim. The Claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The decision

1. The Regulations were concerned with those risks in respect of which the equipment was intended to be protective. They did not impose an absolute duty on extraneous risks.

2. Where an injury had been suffered in relation to protective equipment that was not designed to protect against the injury, the Claimant had to show breach of common duty of care owed by the employer.

3. The tiny hole was undiscoverable by both employer and employee. The claim would therefore be dismissed.

Comments

Mr Justice Lindsey sitting with Lord Justices Kay and Waller dissented on the grounds that the personal protective equipment was the whole pair of boots and not just the toecap and that the failure to maintain the boots was a breach of the absolute duty in Regulation 7(i).

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