Couzens v. T. McGee & Co, CA, 19/2/09
The Court of Appeal held that a piece of scrap metal that a lorry driver used as a makeshift scraping tool in the course of his work duties did not amount to "work equipment" for the purposes of Regulation 3 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 because the lorry driver's employer had not given him express or implied permission to use it; in fact the Court at first instance had accepted that the defendant had no knowledge of its existence at all.
Deemed permission would be inferred where the employer ought to have realised that the item was being used and had failed to do anything to stop it. However, in the present case there was no evidence that the metal had been used openly for a significant period of time and evidence that the defendant's inspections were sufficiently frequent and thorough.
Source: Law Brief Publishing
