header-logo header-logo

06 June 2013 / Cathrine Grubb
Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Civil war?

What will the removal of civil liability for breaches of health & safety legislation mean, asks Cathrine Grubb

Section 47(2) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 as it stands, provides that breaches of health and safety legislation confer a civil right of action unless otherwise stated. Section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 amends s 47 to reverse that presumption, so that civil liability will only apply where this is specifically provided for in the regulations.

This amendment was initially opposed by the House of Lords, when they voted against the changes on 6 March 2013. They subsequently backed down and approved amended proposals on 22 April 2013. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 received royal assent on 25 April 2013. The amendment is not yet fully in force, but once it is it will apply to all cases where breach of a provision occurs after the date of commencement.

Removing civil liability will mean that claimants will be under a duty to prove a case in common law

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll