Health and Safety - Definition of 'Work Equipment'.

In Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown & Root Ltd. & Others, the House of Lords considered whether a door closer was 'work equipment' for the purposes of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER).

Work equipment is defined by PUWER as 'any machinery, appliance, apparatus, tool or installation for use at work (whether exclusively or not)'. The Regulations impose a strict duty to ensure that work equipment is fit for purpose when it is 'provided for use or used by' an employee by an employer or a person who has control over the equipment, to the extent of their control.

Mr Spencer-Franks suffered an injury to his mouth when asked to inspect and repair the closer on the door of the central control room of the Tartan Alpha offshore oil platform operated by Talisman Energy (UK) Ltd. (Talisman). He was employed as a mechanical technician by Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd. (KBR), which contracted to supply workers to the platform. He claimed that the linkage arm of the door closer struck him in the face, because the tension screw had not been put in properly, and brought an action against KBR and Talisman for breach of their obligations under PUWER.

The Scottish Court of Session found that although the screwdriver Mr Spencer-Franks was using to carry out the repair was work equipment, the door closer was not and even if it had been judged as such, he was not using it within the meaning of PUWER. In reaching its decision the Court followed the approach in Hammond v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in which the Court of Appeal found that a police van might be the work equipment of a policeman driving it but not of a police mechanic repairing it.

The House of Lords has reversed the Court of Session's decision, holding that the door closer was work equipment. The purpose of the Work Equipment Directive, which PUWER implement, is to provide comprehensive protection for workers and it covers a wide range of objects used in the course of work. The door was used all the time by workers going in and out of the control room and the closer was fitted so that it was kept closed. It was, therefore, apparatus for use by employees at work and the word 'use' should be defined broadly and should include repair work. The door closer did not cease to be work equipment because it had broken down or was being repaired.

With regard to the example of a mechanic injured whilst mending a works van, the Law Lords were of the view that it could not make any difference to whether or not the van should be deemed to be work equipment if the repair were carried out by the driver of the van or by a different worker in the same undertaking.

The Lords considered the possibility that PUWER impliedly exclude apparatus which forms part of the premises in which the work takes place. In the case of work premises on land, this argument might apply, but in the Lords' view the intention of the Regulations, when read with other relevant legislation, was that they should apply to all equipment on an offshore installation.

Employers and those in control of work equipment are advised to carry out regular spot checks and maintenance to ensure that anything that could be classified as work equipment is fit for purpose and not to wait until it could be dangerous before carrying out a repair.

Telephone: +44 (0) 1753 486 777 (Slough Office)
Telephone: +44 (0) 1189 596031 (Reading Office)