Posted By Roger Russell I am having a really bad day and cant get my head around this one. I know it really but its stuck in some part of my brain!! Could anyone explain to me in 'normal' persons language what this means. Really appreciate it Thanks

Posted By Ken Taylor Wasn't it something to do with the drafters not wanting people to be able to sue others for breach of duties under this statue law - rather than for the usual loss due to negligence, breach of contract and the like?

Posted By Philip McAleenan Roger, Injury and loss do not necessarily follow from a breach of sections 2 – 7 etc. of the act. S47 simply denies anyone the right to raise a legal action simply on the basis of a breach of the relevant sections. As Ken states, a civil action arises when there has been an actual injury or loss and the usual qualifications to succeed come into play; duty owed, breach of duty owed and loss as a result of that breach. Regards, Philip

Posted By Pugwash Roger try this: There are two main routes for civil actions in the courts for compensation following an accident resulting in loss. 1) Breach of the common law duty of care (Think Donoghue v Stevenson, the tort of negligence, snails in bottles and owing a duty of care not to injure those whom it can be reasonably foreseen would be affected by your acts or omissions). This duty was created not by Parliament but by the courts and their interpretation of how people should behave towards each other. 2) Breach of statutory duties: These duties are created by Parliament through legislation. Most of the health and safety legislation passed by Parliament is intended to create criminal liabilities rather than civil liabilities but it is sometimes possible to bring a civil action for compensation by arguing that the defendant has breached a specific statutory duty (i.e. a piece of health and safety legislation). There are therefore two routes for getting compensation and sometimes a claimant will try both at the same time to increase the chances of success. (It will not result in double the amount of compensation however, the purpose of the compensation being to try put you back in the situation you were in before the accident - it is compensation for the loss you have actually suffered – you are not allowed to profit from your loss. ) An employer can however find himself in court twice if he has breached a piece of health and safety legislation, once in the criminal courts for breaking the law and again in the civil course defining a claim for breach of statutory duty. When passing HASWA Parliament was mindful of these two routes for compensation and decided that a breach of the duties imposed by HASWA would not be allowed to give rise to a civil law claim for breach of statutory duty. (This is s47.1.a) Parliament decided however that a breach of the duties imposed by Regulations made under HASWA should be allowed to give rise to a civil law claim for breach of statutory duty unless the Regulations stated otherwise. (This is s47.2) The only set of Regulations which, as far as I am aware, which “stated otherwise” and which did not give rise to a civil law claim for breach of statutory duty were the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations and the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations. However in 2003, further legislation removed these restrictions and claims for breach of statutory duty can now be brought in respect of both sets of Regulations. Hope this helps. Perhaps there are others out there who can add to this/correct any errors. There is one matter which has always puzzled me and maybe someone can help me. Why did Parliament feel it was necessary to ensure that a breach of the duties imposed by HASWA should not be allowed to give rise to a civil law claim for breach of statutory duty? P

Posted By Dave Wilson What it means is you cant use a breach of these specific sections in HASAW to claim breach of statutory duty in a civil case, as they are 'General Duties' eg provide safe systems of work in essence if you get done under sect 2 and say a breach of Regulations then you can use the breach of regs as breach of Stat Duty in a civil claim but not the S2 bit! If you are going to get prosecuted the HSE / LA will use the HASAW as well as the breach in as many Regs as they can get, however you have to remember that injury etc resulted as a direct breach of that regs. fell of ladder which had no RA or WAH RA and steps not maintained (PUWER)etc, as well as the regs you get done under S2 as well, so use WAH and PUWER!! is that explained better be gentle its sunday and late in B&B