It was not incorrect for an inspector to proceed to issue a prohibition notice to the rail operator, with regard to the use of a signal set, which had been deemed unsafe, even where the operator had given formal undertakings with regard to its’ use. The overwhelming need was to re-assure the public as to their safety, and the additional imposition of the notice operated as a belt and braces method of ensuring such safety. The section should be read purposively. The inspector would have been free to issue the notice before the accident. The accident had merely confirmed the need for a notice. ‘Activities’ might include suspended activities.
Sullivan J said: ‘In the light of those factors, and of the authorities cited in De Smith Woolf and Jowell’s Judicial Review of Administrative Law (1999), pp 251-252, paragraph 6-010, I expressed the provisional view during the course of argument that a Tribunal hearing an appeal under section 24 of the 1974 Act was not limited to reviewing the genuineness and/or the reasonableness of the Inspector’s opinions. It was required to form its own view, paying due regard to the Inspector’s expertise, see in particular Sagnata Investments Ltd v Norwich Corporation [1971} 2QB 614.’
Sullivan J
Times 16-Feb-2001, Gazette 01-Mar-2001, [2001] ICR 714
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 22
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Chilcott v Thermal Transfer Ltd Admn 17-Jul-2009
The company had successfully appealed against a prohibition notice relating to its arrangements for working at height. By the time of the prohibition notice, it had implemented a plan satisfactory to the inspector.
Held: The tribunal had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 July 2021; Ref: scu.85650 br>