This was an appeal against a decision that an employer did not have a duty to an employee under the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 Regulations 7 (1). The employer was a lorry driver collecting milk from farms. He had been supplied with steel capped safety boots, which were personal protective equipment (PPE) within the 1992 regulations. This was in case something heavy fell on his feet. A hole developed in the boots and in extreme weather conditions water leaked inside. As a result he suffered mild frostbite and permanent difficulty in dealing with the cold weather. At the appeal lawyers argued that the employer was under a duty to keep the PPE in a good and efficient state. The hole in the boots meant that they were out of repair and the employer should therefore be liable for damage. The employer argued that the boots were adequate in that they protected his feet from heavy objects and that they did not expect their employee to spend long periods in snow and ice.
Did the words "in efficient working order and in good repair" in the PPE Work Regulations 1992 Regulation 7 (1) mean that the employer was under an absolute duty to repair and maintain PPE issued to employees even if that repair had nothing to do with its protective function?

Reference

The House of Lords held that the boots were PPE within the meaning of regulation 7 (1). However, the boots did not fail their test of suitability under Regulation 4 (3) of the regulations because they protected him from heavy objects. The employer was not under a duty to provide him with waterproof boots and the existence of a hole in the boots did not mean that the boots were not suitable for protecting his feet from heavy objects. The words "in efficient working order and in good repair" had to be considered in the light of the purpose of the equipment. As a result the employee's appeal failed and the employer did not owe the employee a duty to repair the hole in the boots, and therefore the employer was not liable in damages.

Postscript

The House of Lords was split with three law lords (therefore a majority) dismissing the appeal while two believed that the employer did have a duty to the employee. The majority prevails, but nonetheless the majority considered that account should be taken on the initial selection of the PPE and that an employer could be liable for risks associated with PPE equipment itself. However, by a majority the House of Lords held that Regulation 7(1) of the PPE Work Regulations 1992 meant that the employer had only obligation to maintain the PPE equipment in respect of its function as PPE and did not extend to general maintenance even if this caused personal injury to its employee.