Goodwin v Bennetts UK Ltd

In a work-related upper-limb injury claim, medical causation may be established on the balance of probabilities where keyboard work materially contributes to genuine symptoms, even if the underlying condition is unknown and a particular diagnosis is rejected. A breach of the duty to plan periodic interruptions under the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 is not causative if a compliant plan would not have materially changed the claimant’s routine. Common-law negligence may arise after an employer knows or ought to know that an employee is vulnerable to injury from moderate keyboard work. Training and information breaches become causative where compliance would have reduced keyboard use and prevented recurrence. Damages are confined to injury proved to have been caused by the actionable breach.

The claimant, an insurance adviser, claimed damages from Goodwin v Bennetts UK Ltd for wrist symptoms allegedly caused by keyboard work. She relied on negligence and breaches of regulations 2, 4, 6 and 7 of the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992.

Portsmouth County Court dismissed the claim. The judge found breaches of regulations 2, 6 and 7, but held them non-causative. He found no breach of regulation 4 or negligence, rejected the diagnosis of tenosynovitis, and preferred evidence that work aggravated rather than caused the underlying condition. The appeal raised medical causation, statutory breaches, negligence, general causation and a fallback claim concerning a recurrence of symptoms in early 2003.

Lord Justice Jackson gave the judgment, with which Lord Justice Dyson and the Master of the Rolls agreed. The appeal was allowed in part.

1. Medical causation. The diagnosis of tenosynovitis was properly rejected, but the claimant’s wrist pain and aching were genuine. The consistent pattern of symptoms worsening during periods of substantial keyboard work and improving during holidays, absence from work or reduced typing established, on the balance of probabilities, that keyboard work aggravated the symptoms and made a material contribution to the pain. The underlying cause remained unknown, but that did not prevent the finding of causation.
2. Regulation 4. Regulation 4 required the employer to plan the claimant’s activities so that display-screen work was periodically interrupted by breaks or changes of activity reducing the workload. The employer breached that duty because it made no plan. It had not inadvertently complied with the regulation. The breach was nevertheless non-causative because the claimant’s existing routine already included breaks and non-keyboard tasks, and a compliant plan would not have materially changed her work.
3. Negligence. The judge’s conclusion that there was no negligence before November 2002 was upheld. After the claimant returned from sickness absence, however, it was or ought to have been apparent that she was particularly vulnerable to work-related upper-limb disorder from moderate keyboard use. Permitting her to resume processing renewals at the relevant rate breached the duty of care, and injury was foreseeable. The employer was liable for the recurrence of symptoms in January 2003 and the breach continued until employment ended in June 2003.
4. Regulations 2, 6 and 7. The breach of regulation 2 did not cause injury because the workstation was satisfactory and the later assessment produced no relevant change. Breaches of regulations 6 and 7 were non-causative before November 2002, but thereafter proper training and information would have substantially reduced keyboard use and prevented the January recurrence.

The claimant was entitled to damages only for the recurrence of her injuries in and after January 2003. Quantum was to be addressed by written submissions and determined by the Court of Appeal if not agreed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) allowed the appeal in part and held the employer liable for the recurrence of the claimant’s symptoms in and after January 2003: [2008] EWCA Civ 1374.
2. Portsmouth County Court, before His Honour Judge Dixon, dismissed the claim on liability and causation on 4 January 2008.