Posted By adam mckellar
hi, anybody know when we can expect the judgement on our `sfairp` debacle ? is the general opinion that the ECJ will follow the advocate general`s advice, if not , what do you think this will mean for UK based practitioners? .......very interesting!.

Posted By Jonathan Breeze
FJ,

Taken from an article on the SHP website:

"There is, however, a sting in the tail to the opinion. The Advocate General says that if the SFAIRP clause is construed as restricting the extent of the employer’s duty to ensure safety, then it is incompatible with the scope of article 5(1) of the Directive. It is to be hoped that this narrow interpretation will not be seized upon by the ECJ."

It can be found at the following address (not sure if subscription is needed though):

http://www.shponline.co....=incourt&article_id=5381

As to what it means for the practitioner, I guess we'll have to suck it and see once the final decision comes out.

Posted By Andrew Meiklejohn
I would have to agree with Chris. Moreover a change from sfairp to dwip would be more in line with my thinking not sure about an sbolute duty.

Moreover i think that sfairp has allowed too many cases to slip through the net without going to court thus inhibiting the justice system to setting relevant precedents.I'm sure that a lot of people will agree about the difference between H&S enforcement from HSE and LA

To illustrate what I see as a failing consider:

Hatton v. Sunderland was a poor judgement. providing counselling for employees suffering stress is enough to discharge duties?

Hines v. Gloucestersher NHS Trust was more in line with my idea - that an employer has a duty to investigate incidentss that may show evidence of stress and take action)

and latterly Intel Corporation (UK) ltd v Daw

i think the victims in these cases and others were failed by sfairp

Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Do What Is Pracitcable, i.e. ditch the "reasonably" bit.

(Don't feel bad I had to ask as well!)