Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Mike Draper
So far as they go, the transitional arrangements seem fairly clear, but I've been updating our team and have had a good question.
Does the explicit duty on Clients and Designers for designs to comply with the Workplace Regs come in to force immediately? Wouldn't this then mean potential rework on jobs that are in construction? (I accept that the design should have complied anyway.)
Separately, does anyone have a clue as to what Reg 45 actually means? I think I understand it, but it still doesn't make sense.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steve e ashton
Interesting Q on Reg 45. Had to re-read it twice, and I'm not a lawyer but - It appears to suggest that I could not sue the designer of the building because I'm not an employee of the designer of the building.
If the Client for a project fails to fulfil his duties, then the only people who could sue in the event of injury arising would be the employees of the client. (So the builders who didn't have adequate welfare facilities couldn't sue the client...) If the client is a landlord, and the occupants are employees of another organisation, they would have no claim against the project client either(or the designer).
Not sure if this is what the drafters intended - but then again, I don't believe many of the regs will act as intended either... (see my post on the 10 second planning job...) - so no real change there then?
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Mike
If you look at the listed regulations and clauses you will note that they are primarily concerned with actions functional to the project, eg welfare provision, security of site, having a CP plan in place etc. Thus persons not employed the duty holder must sue their employer not the duty holder - I think:-)
My view on current works would probably be along the lines of "if the work element affected is complete then no change is required. If it is complete then it would require modification." There are probably only a few items that will be affected in reality. Most of those I have spotted concern things like guardrails, toeboards along edges where things may be kicked off, roof access and use of mansafes etc.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philip McAleenan
Mike,
The intent of Reg 45 is to prevent civil actions being taken on the mere breach of a duty under CDM 2007. It does not prevent the taking of a civil action by any person where an injury or other harm has resulted from a breach of a duty owed (whether statutory or otherwise).
Regards, Philip
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike Draper
Hmm.
WRT to Reg 45, having asked the question I thought I should at least let you know how I think it reads.
I think it says that while employees can claim for BoSD by their direct employer under any of the regulations, third parties may only claim BoSD for those regulations that relate to welfare, access, the construction plan or construction HS&W (Pt 4 of regs), subject of course to the provisos that a) the duty was breached and b) they suffered a loss.
This is somewhat different to your other various interpretations.
This would mean that an employee of one contractor who steps on a plank with a nail sticking out, that was left on the floor by the employee of another contractor, would have a direct claim for BoSD (reg 27(3)) against the second employer.
Is there a lawyer around?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.