Dear all, Very interesting case in the Supreme court discussing PPE Regs and H&S expert witnesses. Available on www.supremecourt.uk. It's a couple of months old but please let me know if anyone finds this of interest. The particular comment surrounding common sense and H&S experts was slightly frustrating. Kind regards, Pete

http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2014/[2014]CSIH76.html

Thanks for this. I had seen the initial case and didn't realise there was an appeal. Eminently sensible conclusion this time I think. Merry Christmas Karen-Anne

I found a summary of the case - posted below. Seems like some good old fashioned common sense has prevailed after all. I think health and safety and industry in general need more cases like this in order to slay the health and safety 'monster'. http://www.brodies.com/b...-v-cordia-ice-slip-case/

I'm a bit hazy as to where this leaves us, maybe someone knowledgable could spell it out for me. Has it set a legal precedent for the whole of the UK ? I for one would dearly like to be able to quote: “In relation to some matters, care for health and safety is best left in the hands of the individual adult concerned. The relationship of employer and employee is not to be treated as being the equivalent to that of nursery teacher and pupil, or that of parent and child…” In fact I'd have it framed and mounted on the office wall !

Lets hope the pendulum is starting to swing back from the over zealous 'nanny state' type approach to h&s we have seen over recent years by certain sectors of industry/business/public sector. Also forced by solicitors, the insurance industry and un-trained/poorly trained h&s people.

AJB, if you check out the link provided by Andrew at #3 you will find the case in September. Scroll to the last page there is a summary of the judgment. However to safe time and effort I have copied and pasted below. I am bound to say that I find those remarks of the Lord Ordinary very difficult to follow. Are the emphasised words meant to reflect an aspect of public policy or some supposed legal principle? It may be that whatever the Lord Ordinary intended by these remarks they betray a failure on his part to recognise that the law does not impose on an employer a generalised duty to ensure or take care for the safety of a person who happens to be his employee wherever or however that person meets risks in his or her daily life. The law of employers’ liability comes into play where risks of injury may arise from the performance and nature of the tasks which the employee is instructed to perform on behalf of its employer – not in relation to risks produced by other independent factors and forces, albeit that on occasions these may be encountered, for example, where the employee is on his way to, from and between places of work. [44] For all the foregoing reasons, and those given by Lord Brodie in his opinion, it follows that this reclaiming motion must succeed.

Don't hold your breath whilst waiting. :-) Solicitors use the law available to them; it's the government and judges which make laws and pass judgments, as is relevant. I'm not always a big fan of solicitors but I do not point the finger at them for the laws which exist or the judgments which are made. But I do take your point. With regards to un-trained / poorly trained (UTPT) health and safety people of course there are many as there are many UTPT managers/directors etc., etc. The safety advisor is but one person in a company, safety is the responsibility of everyone and it's everyone who need to work together to come up with sensible safety. Regards

I agree it is the reponsibility of everyone - including IOSH in highlighting poor practices in industry. However, the silence is deafening!

Very true, however many judgments at first instance get overturned on Appeal and not just health and safety cases. Moreover I think the law can be extremely fickle at times and does not always serve up real justice.