Law digest: Employment

R v Chargot (trading as Contract Services) [2008] UKHL 73, [2008] All ER (D) 106 (Dec)

When criminal proceedings are brought against an employer under ss 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, it is sufficient for the prosecution to prove merely a risk of injury arising from a state of affairs at work (it is not necessary to prove specific breaches of duty by the employer). The onus then passes to the employer to make good the defence of reasonable practicability.

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

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: When saying no to mediation pays

Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial

NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’

NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City

Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted

NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?

Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’

NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline

Error message

Law digest: Employment

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments