header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
03 July 2008 / Nina Unthank
Issue: 7328 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Personal injury update

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

INTERPRETATION OF EQUIPMENT REGULATIONS
PI DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE

STATUTORY DUTY
Lord Justice May began his judgment in Mason v Satelcom and another [2008] EWCA Civ 494, [2008] All ER (D) 175 (May) by commenting that “there is a risk that lawyers, including judges, being obsessed with the meaning of abstruse secondary legislation, may lose sight of the real world”. In Mason, the Court of Appeal had to consider the nature and extent of statutory duties owed by non-employers to workers injured while working on their premises.

The facts of the case were that Mr Mason was sent by his employer Satelcom Ltd to maintain some IT equipment located in a cabinet about eight feet from the ground. The equipment was owned by the London Borough of Redbridge but was stored in a server room owned and controlled by East Homes Ltd. On arrival at the server room, the claimant saw a ladder by the cabinet which he decided to use to carry out his maintenance duties. As the ladder was only five feet high,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll