Health and safety
In Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust and other appeals, the Court of Appeal holds that, for a stress at work case to succeed, it must be shown that the injury was not too remote.
In Health and Safety Executive v Thames Trains Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 720 CA, it was held that there may be circumstances in which the Health and Safety Executive would owe a common law duty of care to the victims of an accident.
In Hardman v Mallon, t/a Orchard Lodge Nursing Home, the EAT holds that a failure to carry out a risk assessment in respect of a pregnant employee as required by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 amounts to unlawful sex discrimination. This is because carrying out a risk assessment is one of the ways in which a woman's biological condition during and after pregnancy is given special protection.
In Horton v Taplin Contracts Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1604 CA, the Court of Appeal held that it is clear from the wording of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992, regulation 5 that when an employer supplies work equipment it must be suitable in any respect that it is reasonably foreseeable will affect the health or safety of any person. In this case the unlawful actions of the claimant's work colleague were not foreseeable.
In O'Neill v DSG Retail Ltd [2002] All ER (D) 500 (Jul) CA, the Court of Appeal held that as soon as an employer has identified, as a control measure, the need to provide information and training, appropriate steps should be taken to ensure that each and every employee at risk receives that information and training and that appropriate training records are kept.
Employers have a duty to protect employees from physical danger, even if the employee wants to continue working. By Linda Farrell, partner Bristows.
The onus is on the employer to ensure workload is appropriate when staff return from sick leave due to stress, rules the Court of Appeal.
In Sutherland v Hatton, the Court of Appeal heard four appeals against county court judgments, related only by their subject matter. In each, a defendant employer appealed against a finding of liability for psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
In Green v Yorkshire Traction [2001] EWCA Civ 1925 CA, the Court of Appeal held that, although the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992, regulation 6(1) creates an absolute duty of care, the words 'maintained in an efficient state' must be given their ordinary meaning when determining whether there has been a breach of duty.
In Dietrich v Westdeutscher Rundfunk, the European Court of Justice ("the ECJ") rules that, for the purposes of the EC Display Screen Equipment Directive, the term "graphic display screen" must be interpreted as including screens that display film recordings in analogue or digital form.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to health and safety.