WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales

References to and/or interpretations of HSE Guidance Documents - Coles -v- Kemutec Powder Coatings Ltd

Manual handling: Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (as amended) L23 Guidance on Regulations: 2004
	Coles -v- Kemutec Powder Coatings Ltd | Find Other Cases

In the Judgment on the 23rd September 2008, Mr Recorder Spink refers briefly to the HSE's guidance on the Manual Handling Operations Regulations, at paragraphs 32 to 34:

......... there remains an issue between the parties as to whether the insertion of the drill bits or chucks into the drill spindle constituted a manual handling operation.

The Defendant argues that it did not. I disagree. In my view, the pushing of the drill bits or chucks upwards into the drill collar is a task falling within the words in parenthesis in Regulation 2(1). For what it is worth, the publication by the HSE relied upon by the Defendant supports this construction by stating that "A load in this context must be a discrete movable object". This covers the drill bits and the chuck with the smaller drill bits already fitted whilst they are being lifted up and pushed into the spindle.

Thus, in my judgment, the insertion of the drill bits or chuck into the spindle did constitute a manual handling operation so as potentially to engage Regulation 4(1) of the MHO Regulations ..............

There is further reference to the HSE's guidance on the Manual Handling Operations Regulations, at paragraphs 40 to 43, in which Mr Recorder Spink states:

....... looking at each insertion of the heavier drill bits as an individual manual handling operation, [the Engineering Expert instructed by those acting on behalf of the Claimant] concluded that, at least in the case of the 12.5kg largest bit and probably some of those slightly smaller than this in size, this operation gave rise to a risk of injury in that it involved lifting a significant weight at a distance from the body which fell outside the guideline figures in the risk filter in the HSE's Guidance on the MHO Regulations (HSE publication L23).

The relevant risk filter appears in Appendix 3 of this document at page 55. The boxes in the illustration on the left of Figure 23 show the guideline weights for lifting and lowering in the zone covered by each box. It can thus be seen that the maximum guideline weight for a man lifting above shoulder height is 10kg if the weight is held close to his body and 5kg if it is held further away from his body. [His] point was that the 12.5kg drill bit being lifted above shoulder height even close to the Claimant's body would exceed the guideline in the risk filter and would also do so if lifted above elbow height further away from the body. Logically, he said, the same would apply to some of the other heavier drill bits, at least if being lifted some distance away from the Claimant's body.

The Defendant's case was this task did not involve a risk of injury. [The Expert Ergonomist] called on behalf of the Defendant, rejected the assertion made by [the Engineering Expert instructed by those acting on behalf of the Claimant] that the risk filter guideline weights were exceeded.

On this issue, I accept the Claimant's case to an extent sufficient to engage Regulation 4(1)(b). In my judgment a careful consideration of the nature of the task involved and of the HSE Guidelines risk filter would or ought to have led to the conclusion that, at least in the case of any of the drill bits weighing I0kg or over and possibly some of those weighing nearly this, the guideline weights could be exceeded. In my view it is also a matter of common sense, given the weight of at least the heaviest drill bit and the need to lift it at arms length from the body, that the task might involve some risk of injury.

V1.03

Last updated: 14/05/2013