WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales

References to and/or interpretations of Health and Safety Regulations - Goldstraw (Lisa) - v - Lucas Rists Wiring Systems

Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
	Contextual Commentary | Goldstraw (Lisa) - v - Lucas Rists Wiring Systems | Find Other Cases

In this County Court Judgment in October 1999, HH Judge Hughes says:

The Claimant submits that the Defendants had a statutory duty of care imposed upon them by the Manual Handling Regulations. Counsel for the Claimant referred me to Monkman on Employers Liability, which said that the regulations contained a wide definition of transporting a load by hand or by bodily force. The Claimant submitted that there was a movement - wires were moved to a panel and then taped, the tape was lifted. Counsel's submission was that the regulations should be interpreted to cover the facts of this case and said that the regulations then placed on the Defendants a duty to avoid manual handling if it were reasonably practicable. I find it difficult to accept that submission. It seems to me that the regulations were directed to the risk of injury by weight. I was referred to the handling directive and cannot accept the Claimant's submission that this is a case within the Manual Handling Regulations. It is not a case involving lifting or handling a load. In any event, the Defendant company had assessed the risk and as far as practicable, taken steps to minimise it.

V1.01

Last updated: 14/05/2013