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
Admin  
#1 Posted : 10 August 2006 13:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bob Youel I have come accross some cases recently where claimants / their agents are using both the FoIA as well as the usual lines of enquiry to obtain information Additionally I have a feeling that interested paries are prospecting Anybody else had experience re this area?
Admin  
#2 Posted : 10 August 2006 13:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ashley Williams Bob, you could say it was vexacious and hope they go away, if they dont say its a repeated request? Ashley
Admin  
#3 Posted : 10 August 2006 13:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Maggie Atterbury It doesn't matter if requests are made under the FoIA or not, ALL written information relating to an accident is disclosable, except private correspondance with your solicitor. One suggestion is that if a serious accident occurs, you imediately ask your corporate solicitor to ask you to investigate it on their behalf (in writing)so your report is not then disclosable.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 11 August 2006 08:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis Maggie - strictly speaking private correspondence with your solicitor may still be disclosable if is not clearly prepared in contemplation of legal proceedings, ie subject to legal privilege. On the general query the mention of FOIA is common now in all requests for information as it does tend to remind the information holder that there are various sanctions for non-supply. Bob
Admin  
#5 Posted : 11 August 2006 19:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd "However, uncertainty remains in respect of the identity of the client. In the previous Court of Appeal case Three Rivers (No.5) it was held that legal advice privilege only protected communications between the legal advisors and the Bank's Bingham Inquiry Unit. The Inquiry Unit in the Courts view was the client. Communications between other employees of the Bank and the Banks lawyers were not privileged. The House of Lords did not overturn the Court of Appeal's decision in relation to this issue. This now a cause of concern for companies as to how they are able to communicate with their lawyers through their employees. When seeking legal advice for the purposes of litigation companies should consider whether the employee who communicates with legal advisors has the authority to seek advice directly with the legal advisors or to give instructions directly to the legal advisors. As a cautionary measure companies should identify a group of employees as the client who have authority to instruct legal advisors. However, a court may still consider whether or not such authority is legitimate"
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.