Keith Patten assesses responsibility for injuries caused by work equipment
* * * * * *
Being a parliamentary draftsman is a thankless task. There is little praise for legislation that is non-contentious but much criticism when it turns out to be difficult and controversial. In drafting the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 1998) (SI 1998/2306) (and their predecessor 1992 version) the draftsman may well have thought he was on safe ground. These are wide ranging provisions, and deliberately so. They have, however, proved too wide for the House of Lords. In Smith v Northamptonshire County Council [2009] UKHL 27 their lordships have seen fit to “invent” a limitation in the applicability of the Regulations which is found nowhere in the wording and which has the potential to restrict significantly the protections offered to injured workers.
The facts
The facts of Smith can be briefly stated. Mrs Smith worked for the defendant local authority as a carer and driver. Part of her duties involved taking disabled people from their
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
