Pattani v ICICI Bank UK Plc

An employer’s duty under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 concerns operations involving a foreseeable possibility of injury, not every manual handling operation. Whether such a risk exists must be assessed realistically and in context, having regard to the operation, workplace and employees concerned. Where a risk exists, the employer must reduce it to the lowest level reasonably practicable, but a precise assessment of every low-risk clerical task is not required. A claimant must also prove that any breach caused the injury or condition alleged.

The claimant sought approximately £1.5 million in damages for chronic widespread pain and fatigue, diagnosed as fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. She alleged that repetitive lifting of marketing materials in 2007 and the movement of files and documents in 2009 caused or materially contributed to her condition.

The defendant accepted that it had provided no manual-handling training and had conducted no formal documented risk assessment. It disputed the extent and weight of the handling, breach of duty and causation. The central issues were whether the claimant’s work involved manual handling operations carrying a risk of injury and, if so, whether those operations caused her injury or condition.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant failed to establish either breach of duty or causation.

2. Regulation 4(1) of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 does not require employers to avoid every manual handling operation. The relevant obligation arises where the operation involves a risk of injury. A foreseeable possibility of injury is sufficient, but the assessment must contain an element of realism and must be context-based. The relevant context includes the particular operation, workplace and employees. The approach in Koonjul v Thameslink Healthcare Services was applied.

3. The claimant’s regular handling of boxes and marketing banners in 2007 involved items weighing approximately 2 to 3.1 kg. The evidence did not establish heavy lifting or any lifting involving a risk of injury. The 2009 task involved moving papers rather than lifting heavy files.

4. Even if there had been a very low risk of injury, the context was ordinary office or clerical work. Requiring a precise evaluation of every task involving lifting or moving papers and files would exceed the bounds of practicability. The bank was therefore not in breach of the Regulations or its common-law duties.

5. In the alternative, the claimant failed to prove causation. The court found that her symptoms and subsequent condition were not, on the balance of probabilities, caused or materially contributed to by manual handling. They represented the spontaneous onset of a pre-existing condition or were triggered by stress or emotional trauma.

6. The court did not determine the parties’ damages-related permutations because breach and causation had both failed.