Threlfall v Hull City Council

Under the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, suitability is assessed by reference to the risk foreseeable before the accident, the conditions of work, available equipment and training, and the practicability of preventing or controlling the risk. The duty is stringent but is not an absolute obligation to prevent every injury. Mere foreseeability of a risk does not require the employer to provide the most protective equipment available. The court must assess the seriousness and likelihood of the risk without hindsight. Evidence of workplace experience and risk assessment is relevant, although not conclusive. An injury alone does not establish that the equipment was unsuitable or that the Regulations were breached.

The claimant appealed from the decision of His Honour Judge Jack in the Kingston-upon-Hull County Court, which dismissed his claim for damages after he injured his finger while clearing a council-owned garden. He had been supplied with standard riggers’ gloves, together with a litter picker, rake and shovel. The injury occurred while he was handling a black plastic bag, but the precise mechanism and object causing the cut remained uncertain.

The claimant argued that the gloves were unsuitable because sharp objects could be encountered during garden clearance and cut-resistant gloves were available. The central issue was whether the supplied gloves were suitable personal protective equipment within Regulation 4 of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, and whether any breach caused the injury.

1. Appeal dismissed. The claimant failed to establish that his injury was caused by a breach of Regulation 4 of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992.
2. The Regulations, read in the light of the Framework Directive, impose a higher standard than ordinary negligence, but do not impose an absolute duty to prevent injury. Suitability requires equipment to be appropriate for the risks and, so far as practicable, effective to prevent or adequately control them.
3. The assessment must be made without hindsight. Mere foreseeability that sharp objects might be encountered does not itself require specialist cut-resistant gloves. The relevant considerations included the nature of the task, the availability of tools to avoid hand contact, basic training, the employer’s risk assessment, workplace experience and the degree of risk.
4. The claimant could not establish what cut his finger, where the object was located, or whether it was hidden, visible or apparent on casual inspection. Apart from the fact of injury, there was no evidence that the risk assessment should have identified standard gloves as unsuitable. The council’s experience of similar work and the absence of previous reported problems supported the conclusion that the gloves were appropriate and adequately effective.
5. The judge below had been entitled to rely on the ordinary use of tools and training in assessing the risk. However, it would have been erroneous to treat an alleged instruction to open and inspect every black plastic bag as an established alternative control measure. That issue did not affect the result because the appeal turned on the suitability of the gloves and causation.
6. The court observed that the outcome might have been different if the claimant had proved that his hand was cut by an unseen sharp object hidden in the debris inside the bag. The continuing risk-assessment process might also require the council to test whether standard gloves remained appropriate for garden-clearance work.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Appeal from the Kingston-upon-Hull County Court, where His Honour Judge Jack dismissed the claimant’s claim.