Posted By A Campbell Decimomal, The HSE has some items on their website... http://www.hse.gov.uk/co...rview/costs_overview.asp may be of help as reference

Posted By Pete48 Any insurance held against the public interest would be invalid and thus of no use to the insured. It goes against the principle of punishing the guilty for crimes committed and is thus against the public interest. This link does a pretty good job of explaining insurance generally. http://www.abi.org.uk/Di...enu_All=1,946,1141#legal or you could try this link to the ABI http://www.abi.org.uk/Di...enu_All=1,946,1141#legal It summarises what types of insurance are generally available to businesses. That might help you to see how they all come together and understand clearly which types of insurance cover which types of legal costs. "But we are insured", indeed you may be but for what perils?" "Ah Carruthers, a shilling for every time that exchange is heard would make us richer than the insurers themselves."

Posted By peter gotch 1 Phil As an an employee of a previously prosecuted employer and as an expert witness, I can assure you that EL and other insurance can cover legal costs, but of course, NOT the much greater uninsurable costs including management time. The legal principle is that insurance CANNOT cover any penalty, as this WOULD be against public interest. Regards, Peter

Posted By Phil Rose Peter I am not entirely convinced. ELI is not intended to cover the costs of an employer being prosecuted for a criminal offence but is specifically intended to meet the cost of compensation for injuries or illness to employees caused as the result of work AND of course the costs of any legal proceedings connected with such a claim. I really don't think that a 'stand alone' ELI policy would not provide cover for the costs of being prosecuted. That is not the intention of ELI. ELI is concerned with any employers civil liabilities to it's employees. A broader policy may well cover the costs of criminal proceedings, but I think that it is important that people do not assume that a 'standard', 'stand alone' ELI policy will cover the costs of a prosecution, I am pretty sure that it would not; and nor is it intended to. Pete48's link to the ABI site specifically deals with Legal Expenses Insurance LEI. Phil

Posted By water67. Hi, HSE publication the cost of accidents at work HS (G) 96. Is an excellent booklet as its basis is in real investigation by HSE into detailed costs of poor H&S at an oil rig, hospital, creamery and transport depot. Study was conducted around mid 1990's. It has ice berg, accident triangle etc. etc. costs to each sector are scary. Cheers

Posted By Decimomal Wasted time? This was a genuine query based around the scenario of one not being able to insure against a fine imposed for a breach of health and safety legislation. I did not say it was a real life situation - it came about during an office discussion. On reflection it may have been better to have posted it in the study forum. Apologies to those who feel their time has been wasted and thank you for those who contributed. I still have not got the answer though......

Posted By Phil Rose I don't think it was wasted time, many of the posts here are hypothetical. Keeps our brains ticking over I reckon.

Posted By Phil Grace To Phil Rose: Trust me - Employers' Liability policies do cover legal costs in respect of defence of H&S prosecutions. It is an additional cover that is added into the policy - it is in addition to the main purpose which is - as you rightly describe - to provide compensation for/to injured employees. A prosecution relating to an injury will often result in a civil claim. Such claim will not be settled until the criminal prosecution has been completed. By providing defence costs insurers get to be involved at the earliest possible opportunity, get to hear all the factual evidence etc and are thus in the best possible position to settle the civil claim quickly and fairly. Phil

Posted By Pete48 A potential theoretical answer to the theoretical question lies within various Acts and Regulations rather than one specific I think. I have never doubted the validity of the fact that one must not be allowed to insure against criminal or regulatory fines but have either forgotten it or never learnt it. I have nebver felt the need to check since most of thre managers I have ever worked with , had the same understanding of that basic precept. Legal costs for mounting a defence have always been insurable but as with any insurance there are exceptions and limits to the cover provided. So I did a bit of digging in a purely theoretical manner; so no assurances given with regard to accuracy or validity of the argument. Just to promote further investigation. For example various manifestations of the Companies Act sections 232-234 covers liability of Directors and reference to the paragraphs will show that the principle I mentioned above is clearly applied here in the context of Directors. Also I seem to remember that about 5 years ago, the FSA amended either the Finance Acts or their Regulations in order to close the hole that allowed financial services companies to insure against regulatory fines. So, once again, we see the public interest angle surfacing. So over to someone else to take it on further if they wish and come up with the definitive piece of paper. If indeed just one piece is the answer available to our theoretical questioner.