‘Michael Gove breached standards rules by failing to register hospitality he enjoyed with a Conservative donor whose company was awarded personal protective equipment contracts during the Covid pandemic, parliament’s sleaze watchdog has found.’
The Guardian, 25th March 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The government’s use of a “VIP lane” to award contracts for personal protective equipment (PPE) to two companies was unlawful, the High Court has ruled.’
BBC News, 12th January 2022
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The UK government has been ordered to reveal which companies were given “VIP” access to multimillion-pound contracts for the supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the early months of the Covid pandemic, in a ruling from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).’
The Guardian, 18th October 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A girl has lost a High Court battle to prevent her school from “requiring or encouraging” pupils to wear a face mask.’
BBC News, 5th May 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Good Law Project will today [15 June] launch judicial review proceedings over the Government’s award of an £108m contract to a pest control company for the supply of PPE.’
Local Government Lawyer, 15th June 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Ministers are facing a high court legal challenge after they refused to order an urgent investigation into the shortages of personal protective equipment faced by NHS staff during the coronavirus pandemic.’
The Guardian, 8th June 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Two NHS frontline doctors, Dr Meenal Viz and Dr Nishant Joshi, are preparing to file a legal challenge to the Government’s guidance on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). This guidance, which applies to health care and social care workers, reduces the requirement to wear PPE and allows for re-use of some PPE. The legal challenge will argue that the Government guidance goes against World Health Organisation (WHO) guidance and puts health care and social care workers at risk, breaching their legal protections at work and their human rights.’
Garden Court Chambers, 22nd May 2020
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘In the context of an employer’s duty to provide PPE to protect against exposure to the novel coronavirus, the focus is likely to be on two sets of domestic health and safety regulations: The Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (PPE Regulations), and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH). The application of the latter should disapply the former, but the two will be considered together.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 6th May 2020
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘Employers owe a personal or non-delegable duty of care to their employees at common law, which extends to the provision of PPE. Neill LJ in Crouch -v- British Rail Engineering Ltd [1988] I.R.L.R. 404 said that the extent of the duty in respect of PPE would depend on:
“the risk of injury, the gravity of any injury which may result, the difficulty of providing equipment … the availability of that protective equipment … and the distance which any individual workman might have to go to fetch it, the frequency on which the [claimant] was likely to need that protective clothing or equipment and, last but not least, the experience and degree of skill to be expected of the [claimant].”’
Ropewalk Chambers, 5th May 2020
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘As Britain gears up to go back to work the issue of whether employees can refuse to carry out certain tasks (or to work at all) will come to the fore as it has in other countries where the lock down has been lifted. The unions are already making it an issue. Clearly people will say I will not work without appropriate social or physical distancing. They may also argue that they are not willing to work without personal protection equipment. Or that they do not want to go to work on public transport. There is likely to be a great deal of litigation and some hard cases to be decided. So how does the law strike the necessary balance? This is not something that happened much in pre covid life but there are some precedents.’
Littleton Chambers, 11th May 2020
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘Have we ever talked so much about PPE? Each breakfast bulletin features interviews with essential workers on the frontline of the COVID-19 pandemic, varyingly reporting inadequacies, shortages and faltering supply lines. When a shipment lands, it makes the news.’
St Philips Barristers, 14th May 2020
Source: st-philips.com
‘The Coronavirus pandemic is likely to lead to litigation in various forms1; indeed, two doctors are reported to have already intimated a public law challenge to the lawfulness of the personal protective equipment (PPE) guidance published by the Department of Health and Social Care, and Public Health England.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 4th May 2020
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘The media is currently saturated with reports concerning the absence of adequate Personal Protective Equipment (‘PPE’) in clinical settings. To date, commentators have understandably focused on the extent to which employers may be breaching health and safety legislation by failing to provide staff with PPE and whether staff are protected under whistleblowing legislation if they speak out. Moreover, this month two doctors launched an urgent legal challenge to guidance by NHS England on PPE. In this blog, Dee Masters and Jen Danvers look at a different aspect to the PPE debate, namely whether there is scope for sex discrimination claims arising from equipment which has been designed to fit the average man rather than their female colleagues.’
Cloisters, 29th April 2020
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘Inquests into coronavirus deaths among NHS workers should avoid examining systemic failures in provision of personal protective equipment (PPE), coroners have been told, in a move described by Labour as “very worrying”.’
The Guardian, 29th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
Taylor v Chief Constable of Hampshire Police [2013] EWCA Civ 496; [2013] WLR (D) 171
“The Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 were engaged with respect to risks from sharp edges in a claim for damages for personal injury once such a risk was shown to be more than de minimis, and the employer had to provide suitable equipment to protect against that risk unless working methods could provide equal or more effective protection.”
WLR Daily, 9th May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Threlfall v Hull City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1147; [2010] WLR (D) 262
“In cases where an employee had been provided with equipment to use in his employment, but injury had occurred and the question arose whether such ‘personal protective equipment’ had been ‘suitable’ for regulatory purposes and issues of negligence, regard was to be given to both regs 4 and 6 of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992; and the concept of ‘effectiveness’ was at the heart of the issue of suitability.”
WLR Daily, 21st Octbober 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024