Posted By Andrew W Mention was made in another thread of this Regulation and having read and digested it I am somewhat confused and wonder what others opinions are. Basically it states that a breach of a duty imposed by the Regulations does not confer a right of civil action. This is with the exception of Reg 16 (New and expectant mothers) and Reg 19 (Young person). My questions are these 1. Why specifically exclude the Management Regs? 2. Why make exception for new and expectant mothers and young persons? 3. Is this Reg really relevant to anything anymore? I look forward to hearing others opinions. Andy

Posted By Andrew W Thanks for that Jay. I stand corrected!! Andy

Posted By Jay Joshi Actually this is an example of initially having the exclusion, as HASAWA also has a civil liability exclusion (Section 47). The rationale was that we have a distinct civil law-workplace claims system based on the "duty of care" principles. The first amendment came after the Fire Brigades Union "complained" to the European Commission regarding GB not transposing the framework directive fully as the framework directive did not have any such exclusions and the second amendment was due to the first amendment having exclusion for non-employees! In effect, the initial exclusion and the latter inclusion has not made much difference in civil claims. In my view, this has very little to do with government control etc, but more to do with posturing by the stakeholders involved.

Posted By Jay Joshi Adrian, It has not made much difference, as it has always been possible to hold an employer liable for "duty of care" in our civil law system. You can check the Pre-action protocols required as initial information for civil claims --it listed the regulations even before the amendments. Ask any expert in personal injury claims in the workplace whether this amendment for removing the civil liability exclusion has made much difference.