Interesting Thought. I suspect that this will be one that will have to be tested by the Judiciary.

It can't be "tested" - it's been revoked by Regulatory Reform. End of. For shame - a huge backward leap for democracy and the lot of the working man.

Section 47 per se has not been removed/repealed, although there is an amendment to 47(2) that amounts to what the OP has alluded to. From what I understand, an action for breach of statutory duty in relation to those regs made under HASAWA (where civil liability wasn’t already ‘barred’) is now not an option, unless the specific regulations make provision for this. So whether it is totally dead in the water, or whether there is a reg made under HASAWA that specifically has a provision that allows for this, I personally do now know. I can’t see this being ‘tested’, unless by judicial review (unlikely!). Anyone attempting to sue for such would presumably be ‘defeated’ at an early opportunity by any reasonably competent defence team, simply on the basis that the law does not provide for such.

Not bad. Removal of over 100-year-old law because the Lofsted report said nothing of the sort! "the Lofstedt report itself states that health and safety regulations are broadly accepted to have been an important contributory factor in safer workplaces with the evidence showing that legislation is the primary driver for organisations to initiate changes to improve management of health and safety" But then, in this "back to the workhouse" society........

Ray, Was it not that the STRICT liability provision was regarded as too onerus....? But there were only a few pieces of legislation that were strict and so Govt took easy option. Rather than searching through and making indivudal changes they simply eliminated any opportunity to make a civil claim on basis of breach of statutory duty. It should be remembered that the statuory duty could still be advanced as an example of "best practice" and evidence put forward to show that employer hadn't adopted such best practice and that as a result they had been negligent. As you say, it will be interesting to see the first cases come through. I'm not expecting any significant change either in number or outcome. Phil

Guys, Some have said (to paraphrase) Section 47 has 'gone' but I'm not sure it has yet. I believe, although I could be wrong (gasp!) that there is a three year window of 'opportunity' (?) to make a claim against an employer in regards to breach of statutory duty. Or am I seriously wrong here? Rich

47 per se hasn't 'gone'. You refer to the Limitation Act 1980, which isn't confined to those claims resulting solely from a breach of SD , and I don't think us affected by the changes to 47 either.

Canopener, I could not agree more about the wording of s.47 HSWA. The exception to the removal of the right to bring a breach of statutory duty claim in respect of a breach of health and safety regulations now applies in respect of all regulations except the provisions of the Management of Health and Safety at Work (and any other) Regulations that expressely related to expectant mothers. Protection for this group of women is enshrined in EU law and cannot be altered by the UK government. My understanding is that with this exeption, it is now not open to anybody to bring a breach of statutory duty claim in respect of health and safety as non of the regulations make express provisions for such a claim. My view is that any attempt to Judicial Review the government's decision to remove this option to claimants is likely to fail. So, to that extent the famous (or infamous) 'double-barrelled attack' is dead and gone. Regards. DJ