swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Health and Safety - From: 1993 To: 1993
This page lists 8 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
Larner v British Steel plc [1993] ICR 551
1993
CA
Health and Safety
An undetected crack caused a structure to fail injuring the plaintiff.
1 Citers
Lockhart v Kevin Oliphant Ltd 1993 SLT 179
1993
HCJ
Lord Justice Clerk Ross
Health and Safety, Crime
One of the company's employees was electrocuted and died when a street lamp he was erecting touched an overhead power line. It was charged with a contravention of sections 2(1) and (2) and 33(1)(a) of the 1974 Act. The sheriff acquitted the respondent, holding that the Crown had not established a sufficient case against it because the company was entitled to rely on plans and the site engineer's marking of the location of the lamp post. The prosecutor appealed. Held. The appeal succeeded. The sherriff's approach was incorrect
1 Citers
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Malrod Insulations Ltd Times, 04 August 1994; Gazette, 06 January 1993; [1993] ICR 358; (1993) 137 SJLB 13; [1993] IRLR 274; [1993] COD 391
6 Jan 1993
QBD
Employment, Health and Safety
The company had contracted to remove asbestos. Before work was to start, the inspector found defective equipment. The prosecutor appealed the acquittal on appeal to the Crown Court. Held: An employer's duty of care extends to all employees, and not just those working on a particular plant and even when the plant was not in use. The duty under s2 applied to all employees 'at work' and was not restricted to those intended to use the plant in question. The duty to provide safe equipment applied even though it had not been used.
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2(1) 2(a)
Seaboard Offshore Ltd v Secretary of State Transport Gazette, 24 March 1993
24 Mar 1993
QBD
Health and Safety, Vicarious Liability
A company is not vicariously liable for the failure of the Captain of ship to comply with the section. The section was not framed so as to appear to give rise to criminal liability of an employer for acts of an employee in such circumstances. The owner did not have personal vicarious liability for everything done in operating the ship.
Merchant Shipping Act 1988 31
Blaenau Gwent Borough Council v Sabz Ali Khan Times, 04 May 1993
4 May 1993
CA
Health and Safety, Construction
A land-owner is liable for work he has ordered to be carried out on his property. The 'person carrying out the work under the regulations may not be the person or only the person who physically does the work.
Building Regulations 1985 (1985 No 1065) 14(3)
Regina v Board of Trustees of the Science Museum Gazette, 26 May 1993; [1993] 1 WLR 1171
26 May 1993
CA
Steyn LJ
Employment, Health and Safety
The appellants were convicted of failing to conduct their undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, persons not in their employment were not exposed to risks to their health and safety. One of their buildings contained two cooling towers which, when inspected, were found to contain the bacteria which causes legionnaire's disease. No-one had actually succumbed to that disease, but there was a risk to health and safety and the prosecution's case was that prima facie there was a breach of section 3(1) because the appellants had failed to ensure that persons not in their employment were not exposed to that risk. The appellants contended that no actual risk to the public had been established. Held: Section 3(3) of the 1974 Act contains an absolute prohibition subject only to the defence in the section of reasonable practicality. The court referred to the concept of risk as containing the idea of "a possibility of danger".
Steyn LJ said that the ordinary meaning of the word "risks" supported the prosecution's interpretation that the section was concerned with the possibility of danger: "The adoption of the restrictive interpretation argued for by the defence would make enforcement of section 3(1), and to some extent also of sections 20, 21 and 22, more difficult and would in our judgment result in a substantial emasculation of a central part of the Act of 1974. The interpretation which renders those statutory provisions effective in their role of protecting public health and safety is to be preferred."
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 3(1) 33
1 Citers
Knowles v Liverpool City Council; HL 15-Oct-1993 - Ind Summary, 15 November 1993; Times, 15 October 1993; [1994] ICR 243; [1993] 1 WLR 1428; [1993] 4 All ER 321; 91 LGR 629; [1993] IRLR 568; [1994] 1 Lloyd'ds Rep 11; [1994] PIQR P8; (1993) 143 NLJ 1479
Rafiq Mughal v Reuters Ltd; QBD 2-Nov-1993 - Times, 10 November 1993; Independent, 02 November 1993
