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?

Bennetts v Ministry of Defence, Court of Appeal, 15 March 2004

23 March 2004
The issues

Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 – Risk Assessment – Lifting – Training

The facts

The Claimant worked for the Ministry of Defence in the Mail Room sorting mail. The Claimant emptied a mailbag by lifting it up and turning it over. As she did so she injured her back. A post accident risk assessment was carried out which noted a medium risk of employers injuring themselves when sorting but as a result of stooping or carrying excessively heavy loads. The Recorder found that the Claimant had injured herself when she tried to free the mailbag from a trolley. It had snagged on the trolley when she tried to lift it. The Recorder found no breach of Regulations as there was no real risk that the Claimant would injure herself in a normal procedure of emptying the bag. The Claimant appealed alleging that the Recorder had been wrong to find no real risk of injury and that in the absence of training it was reasonably foreseeable that an employee might adopt an unusual system of lifting mailbags.

The decision

1. When making an assessment of manual handling operations there had to be an element of realism.

2. When considering what risk there was, thought had to be given to the context. Here there was no causal link between the absence of training and the injury.

Appeal dismissed.

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.


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.


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.


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.


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