Face masks in schools: Schoolgirl loses court fight – BBC News

‘A girl has lost a High Court battle to prevent her school from “requiring or encouraging” pupils to wear a face mask.’

Full Story

BBC News, 5th May 2021

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

‘I don’t like acts of dishonesty by the state’: Jolyon Maugham QC on Covid cronyism – The Guardian

‘Over the past few years, Jolyon Maugham QC, founder of the Good Law Project, has become an unmissable presence on Twitter. But unlike most keyboard warriors – anonymously vocal about Brexit, trading memes over mask-wearing and gender politics – he has only ever seen the social media platform as a means to an end. “I really don’t like this phenomenon of disinterested observers pointing out things that are going wrong,” he says. “I want to be in the club of people who actually put skin in the game to make it better, rather than merely making clever observations from the sidelines.”’

Full Story

The Guardian, 22nd November 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Government facing legal challenge over urgent award of £108m PPE contract – Local Government Lawyer

‘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.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 15th June 2020

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

UK ministers face legal challenge for refusal to order PPE inquiry – The Guardian

Posted June 9th, 2020 in coronavirus, hospitals, judicial review, news, protective equipment by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 8th June 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Doctors to file legal challenge to PPE guidance – Garden Court Chambers

‘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.’

Full Story

Garden Court Chambers, 22nd May 2020

Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk

The Coronavirus and Employers’ Liability for PPE – Part 3: Liability for Breach of Statutory Duty by Jack McCracken and Sarah Hopkinson – Ropewalk Chambers

‘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.’

Full Story

Ropewalk Chambers, 6th May 2020

Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk

The Coronavirus and Employers’ Liability for PPE – Part 2: Liability at Common Law by Jack McCracken and Sarah Hopkinson – Ropewalk Chambers

‘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].”’

Full Story

Ropewalk Chambers, 5th May 2020

Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk

John Bowers QC’s Employment Law Blog: Disobeying reasonable instructions – Littleton Chambers

Posted May 19th, 2020 in coronavirus, employment, health & safety, news, protective equipment by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

Littleton Chambers, 11th May 2020

Source: littletonchambers.com

PPE: a consideration of civil liabilities – St Philips Barristers

‘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.’

Full Story

St Philips Barristers, 14th May 2020

Source: st-philips.com

The Coronavirus and Employers’ Liability for PPE – Ropewalk Chambers

‘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.’

Full Story

Ropewalk Chambers, 4th May 2020

Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk

PPE & sex discrimination claims – Cloisters

‘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.’

Full Story

Cloisters, 29th April 2020

Source: www.cloisters.com

NHS staff coronavirus inquests told not to look at PPE shortages – The Guardian

Posted April 30th, 2020 in coronavirus, doctors, inquests, news, nurses, protective equipment by sally

‘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”.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 29th April 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Taylor v Chief Constable of Hampshire Police – WLR Daily

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 – WLR Daily

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.