header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
23 October 2008
Issue: 7342 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

PUWER to the people

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Elliot Gold and Jonathan Dixey revisit the meaning of work equipment

What is “work equipment” and for whom has been the subject of litigation on both sides of the border. Cases have swung from England to Scotland and up to the Lords. In the recent case of Spencer-Franks v Kellogg, Brown and Root Ltd [2008] UKHL 46, [2008] All ER (D) 26 (Jul), the House of Lords revisited the question of what constitutes work equipment within the meaning of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 1998). Reversing an earlier Court of Appeal judgment, the case highlights some important considerations to be made when determining if something is work equipment and in what circumstances liability arises.

PUWER 1998 defines work equipment as: “any machinery, appliance, apparatus, tool or installation for use at work (whether exclusively or not)”. This definition differs from that which was provided by PUWER 1992. They stated that work equipment meant “any machinery, appliance, apparatus or tool and any assembly of components which, in order to achieve a common end,

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
Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll