header-logo header-logo

Health and Safety

26 July 2007
Issue: 7283 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

R v P Ltd [2007] All ER (D) 173 (Jul)

In considering whether there has been neglect within the meaning of s 37(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 on the part of a particular director or other officer, the issue is whether he failed to take some steps to prevent the commission of an offence by the company if the taking of those steps expressly fell or should be held to fall within the scope of the functions his office.

The question is whether, if there had not been actual knowledge of the relevant state of facts, nevertheless the officer of the company should have, by reason of the surrounding circumstances, been put on enquiry as to whether or not the appropriate safety procedures were in place. That would depend on the evidence in every case.

Issue: 7283 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll