The legislation holds an employer negligent if an employee is injured in the course of employment as a result of defective equipment provided by the employer for the purpose of the employer’s business, and the defect is attributable wholly or partly to the fault of a third party (whether identified or not).
The case Chuhan v Dechert LLP, decided on 11 April 2025, offered current guidance on the definition of equipment under the legislation.
In this case, the employee was employed as a solicitor. She was injured in her employer’s café when she pulled a door handle which detached and struck her head. After the incident, the employer instructed a maintenance engineer to inspect the handle. The person decided that there was nothing wrong with the fitting or threaded recess and reattached the handle to the door. The door handle had been fixed for 13 years without any incidents and there was no record of any issues with it.
The employee claimed her loss of earnings would amount to a seven-figure sum. The court in this case had to decide if the legislation would define a door handle as work equipment. The employee's claim was not based on negligence but instead the Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969. She alleged that the door handle was defective because a third party had been negligent in not using the correct type of screws. This was denied by the employer, who argued that the door had been serviced and there was no evidence it had not been maintained.
It fell upon the employee to prove that the door fell within the definition of workplace equipment within the meaning of Section 1(1) of the legislation. Her argument was based on the screws being the incorrect size, allowing the handle to come off, causing her injury. There was no evidence that the handle had been negligently installed or maintained after the installation. The employer argued that there had been no breach of the legislation. The employer cited that Section 1(3) of the 1969 Act workplace equipment included any plant and machinery, vehicle, planes and clothing. Therefore, a door should be regarded only as part of the premises and not workplace equipment.
The Court acknowledged that there was a lack of authority on the definition of workplace equipment. The Court directed that doors in a building were not workplace equipment. It was part of the building. It was not part of the employee’s process of work as a solicitor. The claim was dismissed. The case gives some clearer guidance on what should be regards as workplace equipment.
If you need any further advice and help, please do not hesitate to contact the Quest HR Advice Line on 01455 852028.
