Podcast Location:
Download it here [file size: 24.8 MB]
Categories:
Employment Law
Personal Injury
CPD Points:
Up to 1 point. details »

Due to the difference in guidelines between the SRA and the Bar Standards Board, CPD points are awarded differently for Solicitors, Barristers and Legal Executives:

Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 accredited CPD point (60 minutes)

Regulated by ILEX:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Cost:
  • FREE
Length:
30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz)
Plays on Computer:
Yes Downloadable as MP3:    Yes
Contributor(s):
Course Aims:

This two-part podcast series aims to provide an in-depth guide to the law relating to work equipment claims. Part One will examine the definition of work equipment under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (‘PUWER’). It will also look at the obligations on an employer to comply with the PUWER and how the regulations will apply to non-employers using work equipment. Part Two will consider when work equipment will be unsuitable, focusing on the provisions within Regulation 4 of the PUWER. It will then go on to consider the importance of risk assessments. It will also touch on claims relating to mishandling of work equipment.

Outcomes:
After completing the course you will:
  • Be familiar with the definition of work equipment within the PUWER and how the courts have approached what is and is not to be classed as work equipment;
  • Understand the circumstances in which an employer will be obliged to comply with the PUWER;
  • Understand when the PUWER will apply to non-employers and the scope of the regulations in this regard.
Level:
Specialist Difficulty: 5 of 5
Classification:
Case Update
Legal Principles
Practical Guide
Sources and References:
  • Allison v London Underground [2008] EWCA Civ 71;
  • Couzens v T McGee & Co [2009] EWCA Civ 95;
  • Donaldson v. Hays Distribution Services Limited [2005] CSIH 48;
  • Fytche v Wincanton Logistics [2004] UKHL 31;
  • Griffiths v Vauxhall Motors [2003] EWCA Civ 412;
  • Hindle v Birtwistle [1897] 1 QB 192;
  • Horton v Taplin Contracts [2003] EWCA Civ 412;
  • Hughes v. Lord Advocate (1963) SC (HL) 31;
  • Marks and Spencer plc v Palmer [2001] EWCA 1528;
  • Mason v Satelcom [2008] EWCA Civ;
  • McCook v Lobo [2002] EWCA Civ 1760;
  • Milner v. South of Scotland Electricity Board (1958) SC (HL) 20;
  • Mitchell v North British Rubber Co Ltd (1945) JC 69;
  • Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998;
  • PRP Architects v Precious Reid [2006] EWCA Civ 1119;
  • Robb v Salamis [2006] UKHL 56;
  • Skinner v Scottish Ambulance Service [2004] SLT 843;
  • Smith v Northamptonshire County Council [2009] UKHL 27;
  • Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown [2008] UKHL;
  • Threlfall v Hull City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1147.

In this two-part CPDcast series, Simon Brindle from 9 Gough Square discusses work equipment claims, giving an in-depth analysis of the major decisions relating to failed or unsuitable work equipment and the relevant statutory provisions.

Start this CPDcast Activity

© CPDcast.com