Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 30 July 2004 14:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bill Elliott Help me out here chums! - a halfway decent summary of the case law would be VERY gratefully received as I appear to be getting nowhere with an internet search except that it is mentioned in the Associated Octel case.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 30 July 2004 16:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mike Craven Bill Its about Directors responsibilites and a contract cleaning company. "Both the contract window cleaning firm and the seld-employed window cleaner have a statutory duty to provide protection {under HSWA 1974 2(1)(2), 3(2)} and the employer/occupier under Regs 15 & 16 of the Workplace Regs 1992. This applies to contract cleaning companies (not just of windows) in respect of equipment left on the occupiers premises and used by the occupiers employees, even though the contract cleaning company is not actually working. In R V Mara, one of the occupiers employees was electrocuted when using a polisher/scrubber, which had a defective cable, to clean a loading bay on a Saturday afternoon, when the cleaning company did not operate.It was held that the director of the cleaning company was in breach of HSWA 1974 3(1). In addition, if an accident arose from the work, the cleaning company could, as employer, be liable at common law, if it failed to take reasonable care and exercise control." The case of King V Smith is connected The case is referred to in the Associated Octel case. Mike
Admin  
#3 Posted : 30 July 2004 16:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Kate Graham It seems there was an agreement between a client company and a cleaning contractor that the contractor's cleaning equipment would be kept at the client's premises and could be used by the client's employees when required. The equipment was defective and one of the client's employees was electrocuted while using it. The contractor was successfully prosecuted under HSW Act s.3 and their argument that they were not "conducting their undertaking" at the time was rejected.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 30 July 2004 16:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Kate Graham Bah, no one answers all day and then I get crossed in the post!
Admin  
#5 Posted : 02 August 2004 12:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mike Craven Kate And I was merrily typing away thinking to myself "what a boring git, bet no-one else is sad enough to quote the case of Regina V Mara - especially at 3.30 on a Friday afternoon!!!!!!!!" Mike
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.