Bux v Slough Metals [1973] 1 WLR 1358
Employer’s liability; contributory negligence; whether compliance with statutory duty excludes common law duty of care.
Facts
Mr Bux was employed by the defendant as a die-caster. This involved him lifting molten metal from a furnace with a ladle and pouring it into a die. During training and for the first two months of his employment, his employer failed to provide goggles. Goggles were then supplied but Mr Bux found they misted up, so he told his supervisor they were useless and ceased to use them. He was not encouraged to use the goggles and suffered severe eye injuries when molten metal splashed from the furnace. He sought damages for breach of Regulation 13(1)(c) Non-ferrous Metals (Melting and Founding) Regulations 1962 and for breach of the common law duty to ensure goggles were worn.
Issues
The employer was under a duty to provide goggles under Regulation 13(1)(c) of the 1962 Regulations and also under a duty under common law to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their employees in the workplace. The employer asserted there was no breach of statutory duty because goggles were provided, and the satisfaction of their statutory obligations necessarily absolved them of any liabilities at common law. They also claimed Mr Bux was in breach of Regulation 13(4) of the 1962 Regulations for failing to wear the goggles provided.
Decision/Outcome
Mr Bux was awarded damages with a reduction of 40% for contributory negligence. The employer had discharged their statutory duty by providing goggles. Compliance with statutory duties does not abrogate the ordinary common law duty of care owed to an employee to take reasonable steps to ensure safety equipment is worn. Mr Bux had breached the 1962 Regulations by failing to wear the goggles and his damages were, therefore, reduced by 40%.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the facts, issues, and outcome of Bux v Slough Metals [1973] 1 WLR 1358. The core legal principles discussed — that compliance with a statutory duty does not automatically discharge an employer’s common law duty of care, and that contributory negligence may reduce an award of damages — remain good law.
Readers should note, however, that the Non-Ferrous Metals (Melting and Founding) Regulations 1962 have since been superseded. The primary legislative framework governing personal protective equipment in the workplace is now the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (as amended, most recently by the Personal Protective Equipment at Work (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which extended coverage to limb (b) workers). The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 also forms part of the broader statutory backdrop.
Additionally, readers should be aware that the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 removed the general right to bring a civil claim for breach of health and safety regulations (amending s.47 of the 1974 Act). Civil liability for breach of statutory duty in this area has therefore been substantially curtailed since this case was decided, making the common law duty of care — as discussed in Bux — of greater practical significance in modern workplace injury claims. The case nonetheless remains a useful authority on the relationship between statutory and common law duties and on contributory negligence.
