WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales
References to and/or interpretations of HSE Guidance Documents - Fifield - v - Denton Hall / Denton Wilde Sapte
In the Judgment at first instance on the 22nd March 2005, at paragraph 33, HH Judge Reid QC states:
Paragraph 19 of the Guidance to the Regulations draws attention to the dangers of using display screens: "Possible risks which have been associated with display screen equipment work are summarised at Annex B. The principal risks relate to physical (musculoskeletal) problems, visual fatigue and mental stress. These are not unique to display screen work nor an inevitable consequence of it, and indeed research shows that the risks of the individual user from typical display screen work is low. However, in display screen work as in other types of work, ill-health can result from poor work organisation, work environment, job design and posture and from inappropriate working methods".
At paragraph 51 of the Judgment at first instance, HH Judge Reid QC says:
There was agreement [between the two Ergonomics Experts] that neither the Health and Safety Executive nor any other relevant body makes any recommendation on the frequency with which display screen equipment risk assessments should be completed, other than in the event of a significant change to the system of work.
In paragraph 61 of the Judgment at first instance, HH Judge Reid QC states:
The Guidance to the DSE regulations advised that employees be trained in systems for reporting symptoms. The point is that it is important to report symptoms and bring about interventions before symptoms affect work.
In the Judgment at first instance HH Judge Reid QC refers at paragraph 64 to the guidance on risk assessments:
The impression I am left with is that the whole risk assessment exercise was regarded as an unfortunate waste of time with which Dentons were required to comply and the form filling was regarded as a tick box exercise and little more. That impression is reinforced by Dentons' treatment of the form when completed. It was not referred to personnel. Nothing was done in relation to the reference to wrist pain. The form was simply filed away and forgotten. This was clearly inconsistent with the Guidance which provides (rather obviously) that those conducting the assessment should have the ability to: "Make a clear record of the assessment and communicate the findings to those who need to take appropriate action".
In paragraph 62 of the Court of Appeal Judgment on the 8th March 2006, Lord Justice Wall outlined Dentons' argument in relation to regulation 2 of the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992:
Dentons' argument in relation to Regulation 2 struck me as artificial in the extreme. As I understand it, it ran along the following lines. On its true construction, Regulation 2 is concerned with the equipment that makes up the workstation and the immediate work environment around the display screen equipment. The health and safety risks are those that arise from the equipment, the user's interface with the workstation and the immediate environment. The ergonomic experts had been in agreement that, with one minor exception, the design and disposition of Mrs. Fifield's workstation were satisfactory and did not present her with a risk of injury. Having concluded that the workstation was ergonomically sound, the judge should have found that it did not present a health and safety risk to Mrs. Fifield. The judge had been further wrong to roll up the various breaches compendiously in paragraph 67. The judge should have concluded that training and job design were the subject of discrete statutory duties under regulations 4 and 6 respectively and could not properly form the basis for a finding that the workstation assessment undertaken by the Dentons was not suitable or sufficient. Alternatively, the Judge should have found that there was no breach or causatively relevant breach regarding the provision of training and job design.
In paragraph 63 Lord Justice Wall then says:
[Counsel] for Mrs Fifield, pointed out that Dentons' construction of Regulation 2 flew in the face of the Guidance attached to the Regulations. I agree. I do not need to set out the Guidance in detail, but it refers in terms to Regulation 2 addressing the prevention of "all the known health problems that may be associated with display screen work". In my judgment, Dentons' construction of Regulation 2 would neuter it and render it wholly ineffective. It is plainly wrong.
V2.01
In paragraph 46 of the Judgment at first instanceon the 22nd March 2005, HH Judge Reid QC states:
[The two Ergonomics Experts] further agreed that the Guidance associated with the Display Screen Equipment Regulations (1992) concerning the planning of work for the Claimant by the Defendant was sound and that if her job was such that she was unable to take a break from continuous keyboard work of about five minutes per hour, then steps should have been taken to ensure that she could. They noted from the risk assessments of both February 1994 and May 1999 that her job was recorded at these times included breaks and/or changes of activity. They did not think that any need for further intervention into the organisation of her working day had been identified. I accept this conclusion.
V2.01
Last updated: 14/05/2013