Elliot Gold and Jonathan Dixey revisit the meaning of work equipment
What is “work equipment” and for whom has been the subject of litigation on both sides of the border. Cases have swung from England to Scotland and up to the Lords. In the recent case of Spencer-Franks v Kellogg, Brown and Root Ltd [2008] UKHL 46, [2008] All ER (D) 26 (Jul), the House of Lords revisited the question of what constitutes work equipment within the meaning of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 1998). Reversing an earlier Court of Appeal judgment, the case highlights some important considerations to be made when determining if something is work equipment and in what circumstances liability arises.
PUWER 1998 defines work equipment as: “any machinery, appliance, apparatus, tool or installation for use at work (whether exclusively or not)”. This definition differs from that which was provided by PUWER 1992. They stated that work equipment meant “any machinery, appliance, apparatus or tool and any assembly of components which, in order to achieve a common end, are arranged and controlled so that they function as a
