Polestar Jowetts Ltd v Komori Ltd UK and Another: QBD 26 Jul 2005

The defendants sought to have struck out a claim under the 1992 Regulations to support a claim under s15(2) of the 1974 Act. They said that the 1992 Regulations had been made only under s2(2) and not under s15(1).
Held: The implementing regulations were made under specific sections, ‘and of all other powers enabling her in that behalf.’ However, ‘The 1992 regulations specifically identify s2(2) of the 1972 Act as the source of the power under which they are being made. In my judgment it is plain that the Secretary of State was proceeding on the basis that that power was sufficient to achieve the regulations’ purpose. And, as I have held, it is not to be inferred from the regulations themselves and their statutory setting that part of their purpose was to confer a right of suit for breach. It follows in my opinion that the words ‘all his other enabling powers’ are intended to refer to such of the Secretary of State’s other powers that would authorise the making of regulations that would have the same effect as if they were made under s2(2). In other words, if it had been intended that the regulations should confer a right of suit for breach, the regulations would have clearly declared that they were being made under the 1974 Act. In the absence of such a declaration, they cannot be taken to have been made under that Act. ‘ The action should be struck out.
Field J
[2005] EWHC 1674 (QB)
Bailii
Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No.3073), Health and Safety at Work 1974 47(2), Interpretation Act 1978 5 SCh3
England and Wales

Updated: 25 January 2021; Ref: scu.229285