INTERPRETATION OF EQUIPMENT REGULATIONS
PI DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE
STATUTORY DUTY
Lord Justice May began his judgment in Mason v Satelcom and another [2008] EWCA Civ 494, [2008] All ER (D) 175 (May) by commenting that “there is a risk that lawyers, including judges, being obsessed with the meaning of abstruse secondary legislation, may lose sight of the real world”. In Mason, the Court of Appeal had to consider the nature and extent of statutory duties owed by non-employers to workers injured while working on their premises.
The facts of the case were that Mr Mason was sent by his employer Satelcom Ltd to maintain some IT equipment located in a cabinet about eight feet from the ground. The equipment was owned by the London Borough of Redbridge but was stored in a server room owned and controlled by East Homes Ltd. On arrival at the server room, the claimant saw a ladder by the cabinet which he decided to use to carry out his maintenance duties. As the ladder was only five feet high, Mason
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
