Casson v Hudson & Anor

For a non-employee, the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 apply only to the extent of the person’s control over the equipment, the worker, or the way the equipment is used. Control over equipment alone engages only the maintenance duty. It does not engage duties concerning information, instruction, training or suitability. A good-condition ladder cannot establish breach where the injury resulted from the manner of use. Where work was undertaken on the worker’s own initiative, without permission and contrary to instructions, the relevant control is absent. A trial judge may reject a witness’s account on credibility grounds without separately addressing every aspect of the rejected evidence.

Peter Casson appealed against the dismissal by Recorder Edge in the County Court at Liverpool of his claim for injuries sustained when he fell from a ladder while carrying out work at a church hall. He no longer challenged the finding that he was not an employee and relied only on alleged breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

The appeal challenged factual findings that the painting work was undertaken on Mr Casson’s own initiative and that the respondents had not seen him use the long ladder. It also challenged the interpretation of regulation 3(3)(b), particularly whether the respondents had sufficient control over the equipment, Mr Casson or the way in which it was used.

The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Lord Justice David Richards gave the judgment, with Lord Justices Sales and Patten agreeing.

1. Factual findings. The recorder was entitled to accept Mrs Hayhurst’s evidence that she had not seen Mr Casson use the long ladder. He was also entitled to reject Mr Casson’s account that he had been instructed to paint the hall and shown the ladders. The allegation that the ladders had been shown formed part of the rejected account of the alleged instruction, and the recorder did not need to address it separately.
2. Scope of regulation 3(3)(b). Outside an employment relationship, the Regulations apply only to a person who has control to any extent over work equipment, a person at work who uses or supervises or manages its use, or the way in which the equipment is used at work, and only to the extent of that control.
3. Equipment-only control. Although the court saw force in the submission that the prohibited use of the ladder might mean that it was outside the respondents’ control as work equipment, it left that issue undecided. Even if regulation 3(3)(b)(i) applied, the effect of the provision was to engage only the maintenance duty under regulation 5, following Mason & Satelcom Ltd v East Potential Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 494. The ladder was in good condition, and the injuries resulted from how it was used.
4. Control over the worker or use. The duties concerning information, instructions, training and suitability could arise only if the respondents controlled Mr Casson or the way he used the ladder. Since he acted on his own initiative, had no permission to use the ladder and had been expressly forbidden to do so, those categories could not be established. The dismissal of the claim was therefore upheld.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the appeal against the County Court’s decision: [2017] EWCA Civ 125.
• County Court at Liverpool, Recorder Edge, dismissed the claim after finding that Mr Casson was not employed by the respondents and that they owed him no duties under the Regulations (claim no 2YN62693).