Mughal v Reuters Ltd [1993] IRLR 571 HC

Reports relating to this case:

  • No place in the medical books for RSI

    1 December 1993

    In Mughal v Reuters Ltd, the High Court dismisses a claim for damages for repetitive strain injury (RSI) arising from work with a visual display unit (VDU), brought by a journalist against his former employer. In holding that no specific injury was caused, the High Court also dismisses the concept of a RSI. It further observes that, in such cases, an employer has to do little more than provide furniture that meets the appropriate British Standard, in order to meet its duty of care.