Personal protective equipment meaning

This checklist This checklist highlights the principal issues to address when preparing contractual terms for business to business agreements on product safety and liability. See Practice Note: Product liability risk management for producers for guidance on controlling risk ahead of new supply arrangements, including carrying out appropriate due diligence on other relevant businesses in the supply chain. Identify all applicable laws (eg Sale of Goods Act 1979, Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994, Consumer Protection Act 1987, General Product Safety Regulations 2005, SI 2005/1803, Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024), as well as any standards and codes of practice that govern the products. Take into account specific legislation for the manufacture, import and sale of particular goods such as fireworks, cosmetics, toys, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, personal protective equipment (PPE), gas appliances, food and animal feed, and automotive. See Practice Notes: Consumer protection for defective or dangerous products—legal bases, Product liability and defective products and General Product Safety Regulations...

The Commercial Court ruled PPE Medpro Ltd broke a procurement agreement by supplying the Department of Health and Social Care with surgical gowns that were not sterilised. Mrs Justice Cockerill dismissed Medpro’s argument that both sides had accepted documentation which, though falling short of the statutory sterilisation criteria for personal protective equipment, still evidenced compliance. Cockerill J said: “That reading did not align with the contractual papers on which Medpro relied, and it lacked commercial logic.” She added: “Accordingly, contrary to Medpro’s position, a validated sterilisation process had to be shown.” The firm was routed into the government’s ‘VIP Lane’ following alleged lobbying by Baroness Mone, a Conservative member of the House of Lords linked to the company. Although Baroness Mone denied involvement with Medpro, she later acknowledged she stood to gain financially from it. After it secured contracts in 2020, the government brought proceedings against PPE Medpro for allegedly...

The UK’s SFO will be expected to play a part in recouping billions of pounds’ worth of suspected fraud linked to the pandemic, as the new government set out plans for a new Covid Corruption Commissioner. Rachel Reeves, the country’s new Finance Minister, informed Parliament yesterday that she has initiated the process to appoint this commissioner, aiming to recover significant sums lost to fraud associated with government programmes during the pandemic. Reeves noted that the principal priority will be retrieving money wasted on acquiring Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for the NHS...

According to Chancellor Rachel Reeves, former Conservative Party cabinet adviser Hayhoe is to lead an inquiry into a 'carnival of fraud', poring over billions of pounds' worth of personal protective equipment contracts. His review will cover PPE deals awarded during the coronavirus pandemic that the last administration wrote off. Addressing Treasury questions in the House of Commons, Reeves pledged that Hayhoe would pursue every lead in uncovering the fraud overseen by the previous government, notably within PPE procurement, where, she noted, ministers had advised dropping any moves to claw the funds back in full, as advised...

This Practice Note addresses regulatory duties for workplace health and safety, including safe work equipment and manual handling. The framework derives from multiple sources; see our Health and safety—key legislation table for an overview. It focuses on office-based environments; other sectors may have additional, context-specific rules. For requirements on visual display screen equipment, consult the Practice Note: Display screen equipment—regulatory requirements. For practical guidance on running and assuring health and safety, see Practice Note: How to manage health and safety in the workplace. For detailed manual handling duties, refer to the subtopic: Manual handling. Legislative requirements Multiple pieces of legislation apply to health and safety in the workplace. Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA 1974) is the principal statute governing occupational health and safety. In short, employers have a duty to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of their employees at work and others who may...

An employer may choose to set a dress policy for several reasons, including: presenting a polished, professional look that reflects the organisation’s brand; requiring a uniform; and/or complying with health and safety obligations Employers have considerable freedom in framing a dress policy, but in reality that latitude is tempered by: the need to apply comparable standards to all staff and to base them on a genuine business need, to minimise the risk of successful discrimination claims; and broader employee relations considerations, since the employer will want a policy that is broadly acceptable to most employees This Practice Note examines: relevant statutory and non-statutory guidance on dress codes the discrimination risks and practical considerations that can arise in relation to a dress code specific aspects of attire an employer may wish to include in a dress policy how to implement and enforce a dress code This Practice...

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note, which reviews the tax measures introduced by the government in response to the coronavirus pandemic and other tax steps of particular relevance, is not updated and is provided for background information only The government introduced a series of measures in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis, either specific to the UK tax regime or administered by HMRC. HMRC also published a business support finder tool to help businesses and the self-employed swiftly identify what financial assistance was available. See: Find coronavirus support for your business. For ease of use, this Practice Note is divided into: EMPLOYMENT SELF-EMPLOYMENT TRADING LOSSES VAT STAMP TAXES INTERNATIONAL TAXES MANAGEMENT AND LITIGATION INCENTIVISED INVESTMENT EMPLOYMENT Coronavirus job retention scheme (CJRS)—CLOSED The coronavirus job retention scheme (CJRS) offered support to employers with a UK payroll by way of a grant to help meet salary costs for ‘furloughed’ employees during the pandemic. The initial iteration...

Claim No. [ insert number ] In the County Court at [ insert location ] Between [ Insert claimant’s name ] Claimant and [ Insert defendant’s name ] Defendant PARTICULARS OF CLAIM Throughout the material period, the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a [ insert job title ] at the Defendant’s [ insert premises information ] premises. At all relevant times, the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, SI 1992/2966 (“the Equipment Regulations”), the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, SI 1992/3004 (“the Workplace Regulations”), and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, SI 2002/2677 were applicable. The Claimant relies on contraventions of the aforesaid regulations as particulars evidencing negligence. In the course of [ his OR her OR employment the Claimant handled/came into contact with compounds including [ insert name of compounds ] containing [ insert name of salient ingredient ], which caused [ him OR her ] injury. The Claimant contends that,...

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [ insert ] Claim No: [ insert claim number ] BETWEEN MR A B Claimant -and- C D LIMITED Defendant PARTICULARS OF CLAIM At all material times, the Defendant owned and/or ran a business [ description of business, eg collecting and processing refuse ]. At all material times, the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a [ job title eg dustbin lorry driver and loader ]. Details of Incident At about [ time ] on [ date ], the Claimant was [ description of work activities being undertaken ] at [ location ] in the course of their employment. The Claimant wore liveried attire and personal protective equipment supplied by the Defendant. This included [ details of equipment, eg Type 1 gloves, which extended approximately three centimetres up the Claimant’s forearm above his wrist, and a short-sleeved company-branded T-shirt ]. Whilst the Claimant was [ description...