Would LOLER apply in this case? If the truss is put in position first and the projector is then attached to it I don't think there would be any 'lifting' or 'lowering' operations involved. It's possible that PUWER might apply although this raises the question as to whether the truss and projector are 'work equipment'. Irrespective of liability under these statutory instruments however there is the general duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - "The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there." Section 2(4)(b) provides a possible defence if the occupier has entrusted the work to an independent contractor and has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the independent contractor is competent to do the job. In this situation, since the consequences of harm if anything goes wrong are easily foreseeable then the 'occupiers' of the building (who may be the church council, pastor, individual elders or anyone who has a degree of control over the building ) would be well advised to ensure that they are satisfied that the job has been done by a competent person or firm who has the necessary experience and/or training to provide assurance that the job has been done properly and safely, both in the choice of equipment used and in the method(s) of attaching or suspending it. This does not mean the job must be done by a 'professional' but does require that the person doing it has shown some experience and/or training together with an appreciation of the risks involved and has demonstrated they have taken steps to mitigate them - eg - providing calculations for the loading on the truss involved based on figures from the manufacturer's load tables and being able to provide re-assurance that the balcony rails are sufficiently strong and/or firmly fixed to ensure that they can take the load involved (this latter may well be a matter of judgement based on experience of having fixed or suspended similar loads in the past since it's highly unlikely that any paperwork will be available to back this up). I am not a professional but have in the past suspended temporary trussing in a church (working according to the manufacturers load tables) and have recently suspended a small projector in a church (on a substantial pre-existing steel frame). I am happy to justify both of these on the basis of my previous experience, but if the trussing had been required to carry moving heads rather than half a dozen PAR 56 lanterns or the projector had been a big Barco model then I would have declined to do the job. Perhaps that is a measure of the competence of the indiviudual - does the person show an awareness of his/her limitations?