What exactly counts as "equipment" in the eyes of the law?
The recent decision in Chuhan v Dechert LLP gives valuable guidance as to the interpretation of the word “equipment” when considering the Employer’s Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 (“the Act”).
The key provisions of the 1969 act are:
- The equipment must be provided by the employer for the purposes of the employer’s business;
- The defect must be partly or wholly attributable to the third party;
- ‘Equipment’ includes any plant or machinery, vehicle, aircraft and clothing;
- ‘Fault’ means negligence, breach of statutory duty or other act or omission which gives rise to liability in tort in England and Wales.
The Case
The claimant, a former solicitor at Dechert LLP, suffered a head injury when a door handle detached as she pulled the door open. She alleged that the handle was defective, invoking the Act. The defendant denied liability, arguing that the door and handle were part of the building's structure and not "equipment" which would be used in the course of the claimant’s employment, under the Act. They also argued that the door and handle were not defective and suitable maintenance checks were in place.
The Court's Findings
In making his decision, HHJ Berkley acknowledged that, “The statutory interpretation of the word “equipment” has caused significant difficulties for some of our most eminent judges. Each case is based on its own facts”. He acknowledged there was not much authority to consider, this case being the first which considers the interpretation of “equipment” since the implementation of Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA).
However, in this particular case, HHJ Berkley commented that, “I cannot read “plant and machinery” as applying to doors: both incorporate an element of production or something that is used in the course of creating whatever it is the employer produces, which does not apply to this door in this case.”
HHJ Berkley ruled that the door and handle were integral parts of the building and not separate items of work equipment. He concluded that “Taking the meaning of the word “equipment” in widest sense, it is in my judgment a step too far to strain the interpretation of the words “equipment used for the purposes of” a solicitor’s business to include an ordinary door in a building.” Consequently, the claim under the 1969 Act was dismissed.
Implications for Employers
- Narrower Definition of "Equipment": This interpretation of "equipment," limits claims under the Act to items that are distinct from the building's fabric.
- Burden of Proof on Claimants: The decision makes clear that employees must provide compelling evidence that an item constitutes "equipment" and that any defect is attributable to their employers.
- Strategic Defence Opportunities: Employers can challenge claims by demonstrating that the alleged defective item is part of the building structure, thereby falling outside the Act's scope.
- Shift in Liability Landscape: With the 2013 reforms removing civil liability for breaches of health and safety regulations, the Act remains a critical basis on which to bring claims for claimants. This judgment may deter speculative claims.
Conclusion
This decision should act as a helpful clarification for all employers in assessing what is “equipment,’ Not every fixture and fitting that an employee may come into contact with at their place of employment falls under the definition of “equipment” under the Act.
For further information on this topic contact our casualty solicitors.