Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Amjad
Hi all,
Can anyone explain me the meaning of the above mentioned Regs.
Reg 21:
Nothing in the relevant statutory provisions shall operate so as to afford an employer a
defence in any criminal proceedings for a contravention of those provisions by reason of any
act or default of—
(a) an employee of his, or
(b) a person appointed by him under regulation 7.
Reg. 22:
(1) Breach of a duty imposed by these Regulations shall not confer a right of action in any civil proceedings.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any duty imposed by these Regulations on an
employer—
(a) to the extent that it relates to risk referred to in regulation 16(1) to an employee; or
(b) which is contained in regulation 19.
Thanks
Rahama
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Amjad,
Regulation 21 is aimed at stopping the "Tesco v Nadrass" defence whereby the employer passes over blame to an employee or advisor to avoid prosecution for the offence.
Regulation 22 is aimed at limiting actions for breach of statutory duty to employees and young persons.
Regards Adrian Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
The HSE used to think this meant nobody could run a sfrp defence with associated RA if their employee had done something wrong. The courts now appear to disagree with the HSE in certain circumstances.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi Regulation 22 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regs 1999 has been amended twice, in 2003 and in 2006. Refer to:- http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2003/e03172.htmhttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/s...003/uksi_20032457_en.pdfWorkplace safety and fire regulations are to be changed to allow employees and employers to claim damages for breaches of the regulations. Employees will be able to claim damages from their employer in a civil action, where they suffer injury or illness as a result of the employer breaching The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 ("the 1999 Regulations") or the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 ("the 1997 Regulations"). Employers will also be able to bring actions against employees for breach of their duties under the 1999 Regulations. In addition amendments are being made to the 1997 Regulations to clarify enforcement responsibilities. http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2006/c06007.htmhttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/s...006/uksi_20060438_en.pdfThe Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 were amended in 2003, in response to concerns raised by the EC Commission, to enable employees to claim damages from their employer in a civil action where they suffered injury or illness as a result of the employer being in breach of those Regulations. They were also intended to enable civil claims to be brought against employees for a breach of their duties under those Regulations that resulted in injury or illness. Employees have duties under those Regulations to use any equipment, dangerous substance etc. in accordance with any training and instruction provided by the employer. Employees are also required to alert their employer of serious and imminent danger in the workplace or any shortcomings in the health and safety arrangements. The civil liability provisions are contained in Regulation 22 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. The full title of the amending regulations is the Management of Health and Safety at Work (Amendment) Regulations 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rahama
Thank you all for the valuable response.
I will try down here to summarize my understanding of Reg. 22 & the 2003 & 2006 amendments. Your feed back on this summary is highly appreciated.
(1) Reg. 22 before any amendment:
"22.—(1) Breach of a duty imposed by these Regulations shall not confer a right of action in any civil proceedings.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any duty imposed by these Regulations on an
employer—
(a) to the extent that it relates to risk referred to in regulation 16(1) to an employee; or
(b) which is contained in regulation 19."
This means that no one (employee or third party) can sue (civil action) employer for the breach of any duty imposed by the regulations. But there is an exception to this, where new/excepted mother can do sue employer for the breach of duty imposed by regs. 16(1) & also young person can do sue employer for breaches of the duties imposed by & regs.(19)
(2) 2003 Amendment:
"Breach of a duty imposed on an employer by these Regulations shall not confer a right of action in any civil proceedings insofar as that duty applies for the protection of persons not in his employment.”
This change allows any employee (not third party)to sue employer for the breach of any duty imposed by the regulation. But no thing mentioned about the breach of duty imposed by the regulations is done by employee & this breach affected a third party (which resulted for civil actions from third parties against employees) (the can not be done against employer who protected by the above amendment)
This situation resulted in the 2006 amendment.
(3)2006 amendment:
(1) Breach of a duty imposed on an employer by these Regulations shall not confer a right of action in any civil proceedings insofar as that duty applies for the protection of a
third party.
(2) Breach of a duty imposed on an employee by regulation 14 shall not confer a right of action in any civil proceedings insofar as that duty applies for the protection of a third
party.
Here in this last amendemnt both emplyer & employees can not be sued by third party as result of breach of any duty imposed by them by the regulations. But still any employee cansue employer & eployer can sue any employee (if breach of any duty imposed by the regulations is committed)
What do you think?
Regards
Rahama
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.