top of page
  • Writer's pictureRobert Spicer

Work Equipment

Work equipment

Reasonable foreseeability

Case Hide v The Steeplechase Company (Cheltenham) Ltd and others [2013] EWCA Civ 545

Statute reference Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1988, reg. 4(1)

Facts H, a professional jockey, claimed compensation from SC following injuries which he suffered from a fall during a hurdle race at Cheltenham racecourse in November 2006. His horse fell after jumping a hurdle. H was thrown and struck a railing at the side of the track. On H’s behalf it was argued that the railing was positioned too close to the hurdle and that the railing was too solid and insufficiently padded. At first instance, his claim failed. Both the hurdle and the rail were work equipment. They were “suitable”, adopting the common law interpretation of reasonable foreseeability. H appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Decision 1. The appeal was allowed.

2. An accident of the type which happened to H was possible and in that sense foreseeable. It was for the defendant to show that the accident was due to unforeseeable circumstances beyond his control or to exceptional events the consequences of which could not be avoided.

Recent Posts

See All


Limitation Case TVZ v Manchester City Football Club Ltd [2022] EWHC 7, Hugh Court Facts Eight men who had been sexually abused by a football coach in the 1980s claimed compensation in negligence fro

Crown immunity and the rule of law (3)

Civil proceedings Until 1948 the Crown could not be made a party to a civil action. This was an offshoot of the principle of sovereign immunity. The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 changed this rule. The C

Crown immunity and the rule of law (2)

Recent examples In June 2018 prison officers were taking part in a petrol bomb training exercise. This was part of an eight-day commanders course at the National Tactical Response Group training facil


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page