Thanks Karel, an interesting case and judgment. My initial thoughts are that gloves are a difficult issue for duty holders because they have to be both robust for the task and allow some dexterity. All too often employees complain that the task is too difficult with gloves. That said, many employers select unsuitable gloves for the task(s) by using a 'one size fits all' approach (sorry about the pun). I don't have any issues with the judgment as I think it is a fair interpretation of the PPE Regulations.

Questions that this raises for me are: 1. Was the risk assessment faulty in identifying only minimal risk? 2. Was the selection of the glove for minimal risk only determined by the risk assessment or simply because the person deciding on the glove type was not aware of the different categories of glove or of the different standards that apply? 3. Was it a combination of these two? 4. Did those making the decision and those responsible for purchasing the gloves receive adequate training in this? I frequently find that inappropriate gloves are being used, particularly when dealing with protection against chemical hazards, simply because those who decide which gloves should be used do not appreciate how gloves work and how they fail, and, for example, that the tests that are done to EN standards do not indicate what protection will occur in practice. Chris

Just 1 point In all my years [which covers most occupations/ situations] I have seen very few suitable and sufficient PPE risk assessments in the general working environment - so perhaps we should start there and to my knowledge the HSE do not have an example PPE risk assessment for people to use/adapt

The recommendations in the referenced article (and presumably the employer's Risk Assessment) surely miss the point. There would appear to be a presumption here that this is a task to be done without the use of tools or safe(r) method & systems of work. General purpose gloves would have been acceptable in the context of minimal interface between the hand and the materials to be cleared from this derelict garden ground. It is for this reason (isn't it?) that many Local Authorities have moved away from black bag to wheelie bin systems. It is equally conceivable that (in lifting a bag of unknown contents) a highly caustic solution may have leaked out onto and through the overalls of the individual concerned. Where then the arguments of suitability of PPE in preventing lasting disfigurement or disability? What is "foreseeable" in this context is that rubbish dumped on derelict ground can contain - anything (dead animals, asbestos, glass, human excrement, needles - you name it). One would have hoped that others would have learned from the shockingly poor methods adopted by those on that recent Environmental Health TV series. I believe the professional focus should be on the whole Safe System of Work and not the gloves. That said I wholeheartedly agree with Chris and others regarding the woeful levels of compliance with PPE Regs 'assessment of need'.

Just had a look at the internet with reference to Chris's comment about Stichstopp hand protectors. Not heard of them before and they look promising - but not sure on the emphasis they place on palm protection (no mention of fingers and that's what gets stuffed down car seats). One thing it will be hard to persuade clients on is the cost - the cheapest I could see was £145 a pair.