I am not sure if you can 'appeal' this. Maybe a potential for judicial review, but I assume that it has been through a parliamentary process to get where it did.

Hi Steve, That would be great very many thanks. I hope you can find it Derek

Steve, That is brilliant mate just in time for our union meeting at 13:15 I can now brief the guys VMT for that fella your a star

Canopener, I wondered if it might just be me having the same thought as yourself. I'm not sure that there is a reduction in protection... unless one makes an extended argument that says the risk of claim is reduced, the chance of success is increased and thus employers are less motivated to manage risk, etc. Which I dont buy... I know all the stuff about hidden costs borne by employer e.g. court costs, sick pay, replacement labour/overtime etc but (for an SME insurance buyer) a few thousand £s (or even tens of thousands) is a good deal when an insurer pays damages of several hundred thousand £s. Phil

The main arguement of removing the strict liability is to level the playing field in terms of defence against civil claims. Under strict liability no matter measures you put into place you would be held liable so a lot of organisations were saying "why bother" and this meant that you had no defence. The UK government when reviewing this considered that the requirement to reduce the risk to the lowest level that is reasonably practicable affords the protection required and the removal of strict liability does not reduce the protection. The EU challenged the "reasonably practicable" aspect of UK law under the arguement that it reduced the protection required to be implemented under various EU directives. The European Court ruled against the EU so it will interesting as to how an appeal against it would be successful (but then again who knows with the European Court). In the meantime strict liability was removed on 1st October.