Gravatom Engineering Systems Ltd v Parr

Under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, an employer’s duty is operation-specific. Where risky manual handling cannot reasonably practicably be avoided, the employer must make a suitable and sufficient assessment, considering the Schedule 1 factors, and take appropriate steps to reduce injury risk to the lowest level reasonably practicable. A general choice of equipment or evidence that a method has been used safely in the past does not discharge that duty without analysing the particular load, force, distance, duration, environment and workers’ capability. A failure to assess alone will not establish liability if the employer nevertheless took the required substantive risk-reduction steps. On the facts, the employer had done neither, and the appeal was dismissed.

Gravatom Engineering Systems Ltd appealed against Mr Recorder Fraser’s decision after a three-day trial in Southampton County Court. The respondent employee injured his back while helping to move heavy machinery manually through the appellant’s factory. He claimed in negligence and for breach of statutory duty under Regulation 4 of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992.

The Recorder found breaches of the duties to assess the operation and reduce the risk of injury. The appeal challenged his factual findings about the force applied and the roles of the workers. It also raised whether failure to make a suitable and sufficient assessment could establish liability without proof that the assessment failure caused the injury.

Appeal dismissed. Keene LJ gave the judgment, with which Rix LJ and Waller LJ agreed.

1. The duties in Regulation 4 of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 required the employer first to consider whether risky manual handling could reasonably practicably be avoided. If avoidance was not reasonably practicable, it had to make a suitable and sufficient assessment under Regulation 4(1)(b)(i), having regard to Schedule 1, and take appropriate steps under Regulation 4(1)(b)(ii) to reduce the risk to the lowest level reasonably practicable.
2. An assessment was not suitable and sufficient merely because a manager had selected skates as the safest method. It needed to address the details of the proposed operation, including the number and roles of the workers, the force required, the method of working and any necessary training.
3. A breach of the assessment duty alone would not necessarily establish liability. If the employer had nevertheless taken the required substantive risk-reduction steps, the absence of an assessment would not have caused the injury. The decisive issue was therefore whether the substantive duty had been performed.
4. The Recorder was entitled to find that the claimant supplied substantial force while pushing the heaviest machines. The evidence supported a finding that the side lookout pushed intermittently and that the driver at the front concentrated principally on steering. A civil judge may draw reasonable factual inferences using experience and common sense; every finding need not appear in an express witness statement.
5. The operation involved substantial and prolonged risks: heavy machines, distances of 50 to 70 feet, a bend, repeated movements and the claimant’s individual capability. Evidence that similar machines had previously been moved by three or four people did not establish compliance with the Regulations because it did not address the particular circumstances.
6. Reasonably practicable alternatives included mechanical movement, specialist movers, rotating workers and using more personnel. The Recorder was entitled to infer that specialist movers would have had greater relevant training and experience. The employer had therefore breached Regulation 4(1)(b)(ii) and was liable for the injury. The quantum issue was parasitic on the liability findings and required no further determination.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2007] EWCA Civ 967, the court dismissed Gravatom’s appeal and upheld the liability findings.
2. Southampton County Court: Mr Recorder Fraser, on 4 December 2006, found breaches of Regulations 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b)(i) and 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992.