header-logo header-logo

18 September 2009 / Robert Weir KC
Categories: Features , Personal injury , Employment
printer mail-detail

Not aloud

Robert Weir examines what makes a place of work unsafe

It is now more than 16 years since the Six-Pack Regulations (Usdaw Guide to the 1992 Health and Safety regulations), setting new health and safety duties on employers, came into force. Yet the old health and safety rules still have a role to play as shown by Baker v Quantum Clothing Group and others [2009] EWCA Civ 499, [2009] All ER (D) 205 (May) in which the claimant employee relied upon s 29 of the Factories Act 1961 (FaA 1961) in her claim for noise-induced deafness suffered in the 1970s and 1980s.

The importance of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Baker lies in the approach that Lady Justice Smith took to defining safety under s 29. Whether a place of work is unsafe is a question of fact. That it may have been unforeseeable to the employer that the place was unsafe is irrelevant. The test for safety is strict. By so deciding, Smith LJ was finding that the statutory duty imposed

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
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’
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
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
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
back-to-top-scroll