Broadfield v Meyrick Estate Management

Regulation 12.5 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 requires a suitable and sufficient, secure and substantial handrail on at least one side of every staircase forming a traffic route, including steps at the top of a staircase.

The employer bears the burden of proving that a handrail cannot be provided without obstructing the traffic route. The relevant standard is impossibility, and proper evidence is required. Official guidance may assist construction but is not binding. Breach alone does not establish liability: causation remains a factual issue, and an appellate court will respect a trial judge’s evaluation where supported by evidence.

An employee fell at the top of a steep staircase at work and suffered serious spinal injuries. She alleged that her employer had breached Regulation 12.5 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 by failing to provide a handrail on the final two steps.

The Southampton County Court found that the existing handrails were suitable and sufficient, or alternatively that the statutory exception applied. It also found that the absence of a handrail had not caused the accident. The Court of Appeal considered the construction of Regulation 12.5, the statutory exception, and causation.

1. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. The Court of Appeal accepted that the alleged breach of the risk-assessment duty under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 was not causative. The common-law duty added nothing on the facts, so the appeal turned on Regulation 12.5 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and causation (paras [4]-[6]).
2. Following and approving the approach in Ellis v Bristol City Council [2007] EWCA Civ 685, the court held that an official code of practice may assist in construing safety regulations, although it must be treated with caution and does not have the authority of a judicial decision (para [14]).
3. Where two reasonable constructions are available, the construction that best promotes employee safety is to be preferred. Regulation 12.5, read with the Code of Practice, required a secure and substantial handrail on at least one side of the whole staircase, including one side of the two top steps. The court deliberately left the application of the duty to other configurations of landings and stairs to be determined by the facts (paras [15]-[17]).
4. The statutory exception placed the burden on the employer. The applicable standard was impossibility: the employer had to show that a handrail could not be provided without obstructing the traffic route. The evidence was inadequate. The witness relied upon was not an expert in the relevant field, his investigations had not addressed the issue properly, and photographs alone were insufficient. The employer therefore failed to establish the exception (paras [18]-[19]).
5. Causation remained a question of fact. The recorder was entitled to reject the appellant’s arguments and evidence, and was best placed to assess her account and physical demonstration of the fall. His finding that she would not have been in a position to use a handrail, even if one had been present, was supported by the evidence and could not be disturbed. The appeal was accordingly dismissed (paras [20]-[24]).

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.
2. Southampton County Court: Mr Recorder De Freitas rejected the claim on the relevant issues, finding that the handrails were suitable and sufficient, or that the statutory exception applied, and that the absence of a handrail was not causative.