header-logo header-logo

UK plc: limited safety?

02 March 2007 / Victoria Howes , Michael Appleby
Issue: 7262 / Categories: Features , Health & safety , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

UK health and safety laws are under the EC spotlight again. Victoria Howes and Michael Appleby explain why

Not for the first time the European Commission (the Commission) has brought proceedings against the UK alleging non-compliance with European laws in the area of health and safety. Numerous cases were brought in relation to non-compliance with the Working Time Directive 93/104/EC, for example. This time, the Commission alleged that the UK failed to transpose the Framework Directive 89/391/EEC (the Directive) concerning the prevention of occupational risks and the protection of the safety and health of workers (see European Commission v United Kingdom C – 127/05).

The original complaint was launched 10 years ago. The main thrust was that the qualifying phrase ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ used by the UK in its primary legislation, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA 1974), limited the scope of the employer’s obligation. This, the Commission argues, is incompatible with Art 5 of the Directive.

On 18 January 2007, Advocate General Mengozzi

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll