Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi everyone! This may sound a bit of a mad question! We all know the meaning of reasonably practicable but to truly implement it surly it has got to take into consideration how much money you make.
For example
Company A makes 50 million a month and to implement a control measure which had a risk rating of 5 on the risk assessment it cost a million so you would expect that to be ok.
On the other hand company B in the same line of work but with rent cost etc only has a million a year profit but has the same risk as B. To implement the one million control measure becomes unreasonable .
Does anyone know ( why I said it was a mad question) what percentage of a business profit or income the HSE would expect to be spent to be able to demonstrate the true meaning of practicable.
As one employer might think ten pound is expensive the other might think it's not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
My understanding is that the test of reasonably practicable is independent of the ABILITY to pay but driven by the level of risk and the 'cost'. Therefore an employer may may not argue that they CAN'T afford to pay but they can argue that they don't need to pay because the 'cost' far outweighs the risk.
Otherwise it would seem to me that smaller employers could 'legally' operate with health and standards far inferior to other larger and wealthier employers.
In short, if you can't afford to do it safely, then you shouldn't be going it.
It is of course possible that some courts MIGHT interpret the test differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
JoshuaX wrote:Hi everyone! This may sound a bit of a mad question! We all know the meaning of reasonably practicable but to truly implement it surly it has got to take into consideration how much money you make.
For example
Company A makes 50 million a month and to implement a control measure which had a risk rating of 5 on the risk assessment it cost a million so you would expect that to be ok.
On the other hand company B in the same line of work but with rent cost etc only has a million a year profit but has the same risk as B. To implement the one million control measure becomes unreasonable .
No, I don't think it matters how much profit you make. In the example you give, it is simply the case that company B is failing to operate profitably. You don't get let off statutory obligations just because complying with them would cause you to make a loss.
Company B needs to either get out of that line of business or arrange it's affairs so it can operate within the law. In the example given, it is going to either have to reduce its rent etc, or cease trading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Canopener is spot on.
The only time that the actual operating costs in relation to income will be seen as relevant in the UK are when setting the level of the fine!
There has been a short article in the SHP just yesterday on this very topic that sets it out very clearly in relation to decided cases against Network Rail and also Sellafield.
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Joshua
The courts have interpreted the expression in the terms that Canopener has set out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.