Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
matelot1965  
#1 Posted : 31 January 2014 15:28:30(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
matelot1965

Guys/Girls, Can anyone tell me if the Removal of Strict liabilty to section 47 of HSAWA which became law on October 1st 2013 is being appealed ? ( I thought i read somewhere a while ago that it had gone to the european courts) and if it is being appealed is the law still in force during the appeal process or not ? Any info would be greatly appreciated VMT
Canopener  
#2 Posted : 31 January 2014 15:46:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

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.
Steve e ashton  
#3 Posted : 31 January 2014 19:22:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve e ashton

I understand that the law is in - but I believe an application was made for a review to the Euro court of Justice because of the perception that it reduces the protection available to employees - which is illegal even for Governments under EU rules.. I'll try to find the reference STeve.
matelot1965  
#4 Posted : 31 January 2014 21:45:48(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
matelot1965

Hi Steve, That would be great very many thanks. I hope you can find it Derek
Steve e ashton  
#5 Posted : 03 February 2014 12:08:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve e ashton

http://www.scotsman.com/...ess-protection-1-3117491 An article in the Scotsman: "Allan McDougall (an Edinburgh firm of Solicitors) has submitted a complaint about the new legislation to the European Commission, as under EU regulations, any changes in law should lead to an improvement in the level of protection afforded to workers. Section 69 will result in a reduction of that protection." Article dated 30th September. I have been unable to find any more recent reference... Steve
matelot1965  
#6 Posted : 03 February 2014 12:37:20(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
matelot1965

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  
#7 Posted : 03 February 2014 16:14:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

Interesting! I am sure there will be different opinions, but I am left wondering whether the changes actually lead to a 'reduction in protection'? The changes clearly lead to a situation where there is less opportunity to make a civil claim, but is that in itself a 'reduction in protection'?
Phil Grace  
#8 Posted : 03 February 2014 16:48:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Phil Grace

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
matelot1965  
#9 Posted : 03 February 2014 18:14:54(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
matelot1965

I guess it depends on whether the EU law that Mr McDougall is basing his appeal on refers to a reduction in either physical or legal protection. I am assuming that Mr McDougall is an educated man and his basing his appeal on the reduction of legal protection.
Billibob  
#10 Posted : 04 February 2014 12:01:59(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Billibob

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.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.