Peter Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown & Root and others

United Kingdom

In the recent House of Lords judgement, Peter Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown & Root and others, a door-closing device was held to be “work equipment”, in terms of regulation 2 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (“PUWER”). The case related to a personal injury sustained by Mr Spencer-Franks whilst working on an offshore installation.

Regulation 2 defines work equipment as “any machinery, appliance, apparatus, tool or installation for use at work”. Although it was argued that PUWER was not intended to apply to apparatus forming part of the structure of the premises, the Lords held that PUWER was intended to apply to all equipment on the offshore installation, whether it was integrated into the structure or not. It was confirmed that PUWER should not be unnecessarily restricted on the question of what constitutes work equipment, when the purpose is to provide comprehensive protection to workers.

To view the House of Lords judgement click here.

To view our full Law-Now article click here.