header-logo header-logo

A different view?

04 November 2010 / David Branson
Issue: 7440 / Categories: Features , Health & safety
printer mail-detail

David Branson explores the differences between criminal & civil liability for health & safety

In health and safety law there is both civil and criminal liability, and in both cases a general liability and a specific one. In criminal law the general liability exists under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA 1974), which imposes duties on the employer to ensure the health and safety of employees. The specific liability lies under the various subordinate regulations, such as the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/2306) (the regulations) which looks mainly at machinery guarding issues. In civil law the general liability lies under the common law tort of negligence, as originally set out in the case of Wilson & Clyde Coal v English [1938] AC 57, [1937] 3 All ER 628, while the specific liability lies under an action for breach of statutory duty, using the same subordinate legislation as exists for criminal law.

The nature of liability can be seen as either fault-based or strict. Fault–based liability

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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll