It is established that, where different sets of regulations may apply to the same set of circumstances, the court should where possible construe the regulations with a view to avoiding their overlapping application (paras 57, 60, 82).

When considering whether a door is suitably constructed within the meaning of regulation 18(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, the test of suitability is not to be equated with the concept of negligence and a significantly higher degree of liability is imposed than the common law standard. An assessment of the degree of risk of harm is required, requiring an assessment of the existence of a real or material risk of possible injury. Both the likelihood and the severity of the hazard posed by any alleged defect in construction are matters of fundamental importance when considering whether an item has been suitably constructed for the purposes of regulation 18(1) and those matters will be crucial to any prior assessment whether any steps are required to be taken either to protect against or remove the potential hazard. The test of liability requires a qualitative assessment taking account of all relevant circumstances, including the extent of the seriousness of the potential injury and the extent of the alleged unsuitability, in order to enable the court to determine whether the degree of risk is such that the door is suitable having regard to the risks to health and safety. In making such an assessment, it is necessary to take into account the risks arising from an individual acting in a careless or inattentive manner. Further, the fact that an accident is caused by a known source of danger, but in a way that could not have been foreseen, affords no defence. (paras 42, 61–63, 66, 71, 72, 79, 80, 82).

Where, therefore, the claimant police officer brought an action for damages for personal injury which she had sustained when she trapped her thumb between the latch and door frame of an electronically locking door to the custody suite at a police station, and, dismissing the claim, the judge held that neither the first defendant chief constable nor the second defendant maintenance contractor was in breach of regulation 18(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 as regards the suitability of the door and that regulation 4(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, concerning the suitability of work equipment, did not apply, and where on the claimant’s appeal the chief constable conceded liability under the 1992 Regulations but cross-appealed against the judge’s finding that the maintenance contractor was not so liable—