Xavier at #39
Interested in your interpretation as I know of a case very similar to how this is described that wasn't reported and resulted in the local inspector threatening all sorts as the incident should have been reported due to an over 7-day absence

Hi David

My interpretation in this case would be to err towards not reportable based on the information provided. My caveat would be as previously indicated that there could be circumstances that pushed this towards being reportable that we don't know about within the scenario. There may have been circumstances within your incident that actually made it reportable. I really don't think there is enough information here to be able to say that one incident is exactly the same as another and therefore properly comparable. Only the OP knows the detail and they've made their mind up accordingly.

I'm just keen that the correct test is applied. Application of the 'its at work/part of their work and therefore work-related' is probably what leads to most confusion in regard to RIDDOR and I see it quite a lot.

RIDDOR is just as capable of being misinterpreted by the enforcement community as the practice community!