Blair v The Chief Constable of Sussex Police

Suitability under the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 requires a structured analysis. The court must first identify the risk and ask whether the equipment provided was, so far as practicable, effective to prevent or adequately control it. Adequate control includes preventing significant injury. Only then should appropriateness and ergonomic considerations be assessed, unless more effective equipment was impracticable. The employer bears the burden of proving impracticability and compliance. Common-law foresight, negligence and operational convenience do not determine statutory compliance. Causation may be established where stronger equipment would probably have reduced the injury, even if it would not have prevented the accident completely.

A serving police officer injured his ankle and tibia while undertaking an advanced off-road motorcycle training course. He alleged that the motorcycle and his standard-issue boots were unsuitable under the relevant work-equipment regulations and the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992.

The Brighton County Court dismissed the claims. Permission to appeal was refused on the motorcycle issue but granted on the boots issue. The appeal concerned whether the boots were suitable PPE, whether stronger motocross boots were impracticable, and whether the alleged breach caused compensable injury.

1. Appeal allowed. The judgment for the Chief Constable was set aside. Judgment was entered for the claimant for the agreed damages.
2. Suitability of PPE. Lord Justice Longmore adopted the structured approach in Threlfall v Kingston-upon-Hull City Council [2011] ICR 209. The court must first identify the risk of injury and ask whether the equipment provided was, so far as practicable, effective to prevent or adequately control that risk. Only if effective protection was provided, or more effective protection was impracticable, is it necessary to consider appropriateness under regulation 4(3)(a), or ergonomic requirements and the wearer’s state of health under regulation 4(3)(b).
3. The Alt-berg boots were not effective to prevent significant injury. The burden was on the Chief Constable to plead and prove that stronger protective equipment was impracticable. That issue had not been squarely raised or proved at trial. The evidence established that stronger boots could have been provided and that doing so was not impractical.
4. The statutory test was distinct from common-law negligence. Likelihood or foresight of injury, and whether providing motocross boots would have been sensible for operational duties, were irrelevant to compliance with the Regulations. The decision did not establish common-law negligence.
5. Causation. The trial judge had misread the orthopaedic evidence. The evidence showed that stronger boots would probably have minimised the injury. That was sufficient to establish causation even though the boots might not have prevented the accident or all damage. Lord Justice Lewison and the Master of the Rolls agreed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The appeal on the suitability of the boots was allowed, the lower judgment was set aside, and judgment was entered for the claimant: [2012] EWCA Civ 633.
2. Brighton County Court. His Honour Judge Barratt QC dismissed the claims concerning the motorcycle and boots. Permission to appeal was later refused on the motorcycle issue but granted on the boots issue.