Hide v The Steeplechase Company (Cheltenham) Ltd & Ors

Under Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, regulation 4 imposes a standard more stringent than common-law reasonableness. A defendant cannot avoid liability merely because the precise accident was unusual, no similar accident had occurred, or relevant industry guidance had been followed.

Once an injured claimant shows contact with work equipment which is, or may be, unsuitable, the defendant must establish that the accident resulted from unforeseeable circumstances beyond its control, or from exceptional events whose consequences could not have been avoided despite all due care. The statutory duty requires foreseeable harm to be anticipated rather than awaiting a prior accident.

A professional self-employed jockey was injured after his horse fell shortly after clearing a hurdle at Cheltenham Racecourse. He then collided with an upright post in the outer guard rail. The hurdle and rail were individually unobjectionable, but the claimant contended that their proximity, the rigidity of the rail and the padding made the equipment unsuitable.

HHJ Harris in the Oxford County Court dismissed the claim. He held that the accident was unusual and not reasonably foreseeable in the common-law sense, and that the racecourse had complied with the British Horseracing Authority’s requirements. The appeal concerned the construction and application of regulation 4 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, read with the relevant European Directives.

1. Appeal allowed. The court entered judgment for the claimant. The agreed damages were £58,000.

2. Regulation 4 had to be construed consistently with the Framework Directive and the Use of Work Equipment Directive. Its reference to matters which it is reasonably foreseeable will affect health or safety did not import the ordinary common-law inquiry whether the particular accident was likely, or whether its precise mechanism was foreseeable.

3. Where a claimant establishes injury from contact with work equipment which is, or may be, unsuitable, the defendant must prove that the accident was due either to unforeseeable circumstances beyond its control or to exceptional events whose consequences could not have been avoided despite the exercise of all due care. This construction preserved the Directive’s protective purpose and placed the benefit of its permitted limitation of liability on the defendant.

4. The trial judge therefore erred by treating the unusual nature of the fall, and compliance with British Horseracing Authority guidance, as conclusive. The relevant question was whether foreseeable harm from contact with the guard rail should have been anticipated. Compliance with industry guidance may be relevant evidence, but it does not displace the statutory standard.

5. The equipment fell within the Regulations. The court considered that both the hurdle and guard rail were being used as work equipment. The racecourse could not establish the statutory defence: the rail could have been placed further from the hurdle, its uprights could have been less rigid or more substantially padded, and it had not shown that such precautions could not have avoided the injury. The Regulations are stringent but do not require the elimination of the inherent, lawful hazards of jump racing.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — allowed the appeal and entered judgment for the claimant: [2013] EWCA Civ 545.
• Oxford County Court — HHJ Harris dismissed the claimant’s action under regulation 4 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.