The company appealed a notice requiring them to avoid th eneed for its employees to carry out manual handling operations.
Held: The notice was inadequate, and the magistrates had been wrong to try to improve it by adding to it. The inspector had been ready to consider an alternative such as training but this had not been included within the notice. The notice served here could not allow the person served to know what was wrong, why it was wrong, and what was expected of him to correct it. Appeal allowed.
Judges:
Evans-Lombe J
Citations:
Times 05-Apr-2005, [2005] EWHC 387 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 21, Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 4
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Miller-Mead v Minister for Housing and Local Government and Another CA 1963
The court considered the power of the Secretary of state to vary or amend an enforcement notice under the Act.
Held: He could amend a notice which was otherwise invalid but not one which was upon its face a nullity. Lord Denning MR said: ‘He . .
Cited – Bexley London Borough Council v Gardner Merchant plc QBD 1993
The local authority brought complaint against the company that they failed to supply appropriate wash hand basins for staff near working areas. A number of notices were served each of which specified measures which should be taken. The appellants . .
Cited – Ormston v Horsham Rural District Council 1966
Lord Denning said: ‘An Enforcement notice is not to be regarded with the strict eye of a conveyancer. An inaccuracy or mis-description does not make it a nullity . . so long as an Enforcement notice tells a man fairly what he has done wrong and what . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health and Safety
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.223636
