Court of Appeal considers whether Student Loans Company is bound by EU work equipment duty

The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 22 May 2026 in a tinnitus claim by a former call handler against the Student Loans Company, which raised whether an EU work equipment directive can be enforced against it.

Background

Mark Wetherell worked for the Student Loans Company Limited (SLC) as a call handler. He claims to suffer from tinnitus caused by a defective telephone headset that SLC provided for his work. He brought a personal injury claim in the County Court against his former employer.

It was common ground that a claim in negligence would fail, and Mr Wetherell did not pursue one. He relied instead on Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/104/EC on minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment. It requires the employer to take the measures necessary to ensure that work equipment is suitable for the work, or properly adapted for it, and may be used by workers without impairment to their safety or health. The duty is drafted as a duty of result, so whether the employer acted unreasonably is irrelevant to its application.

The question

It was common ground that, if a directive provision meets the proper test, it can be enforced against the state or an emanation of the state, but not against another private body or person. The issue was whether SLC is an emanation of the state. In its defence SLC described itself as a private limited company and "an executive non-departmental public body".

A second ground on appeal to the High Court was whether the absence of a civil law remedy in domestic law meant the Directive had not been properly transposed, with the result that it was directly effective.

The proceedings so far

HH Judge Freedman decided the enforceability question as a preliminary issue in the County Court. He dismissed the claim, concluding that SLC was not an emanation of the state and that the Directive was therefore not directly enforceable against it.

Mr Justice Eyre ([2024] EWHC 1443 (KB)) dismissed the appeal on both grounds. On emanation of the state he applied the two-limbed test from Foster v British Gas plc [1991] 2 AC 306 and held that SLC was not an emanation of the state.

Domestic law

The UK scheme of implementation includes the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. Section 47(2) of the 1974 Act made breach of health and safety regulations actionable in damages. Section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 amended section 47 to remove civil liability for breaches of regulations, including those implementing the Directive.

The relevant facts occurred when there was no statutory remedy available. It was not in dispute that there is a gap between a remedy based on direct effect under Article 3(1), which imports a form of strict liability, and the remedies now available in domestic law.

The appeal was heard on 18 March 2026 by Lord Justice Baker, Lord Justice Green and Lord Justice Lewis. Lord Justice Green gave the judgment.

Sources

• Mark Wetherell v Student Loans Company Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 645, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 22 May 2026