a quick answer the definitation is recorded in case law but I am at a loss at this time to remember the parameters - any body help? the basics are that the more somebody imposes their will and others have to conform the more a person is in control e.g. if you have agency staff working for you where you never see them nor direct them the less control you have over them as they are self governing & v-versa applies The base principal applies in the RR[FS]O e.g. common areas; where the landlord does not let tenants do anything in a common area via an official contract and it is enforced so a strong control situation exists. additionally where there could be doubt e.g. common area again; it was felt that the landlord etc should be more stongly accountable under law hence the control element was brought in noting that rent is not easily obtained from common areas so identifying those in control is very hard in those cases as no easy link can be found so the landlord is in control irrespective e.g. they must ensure safe MOE in their control [ [common] areas

without knowing all the details the controller of the undertaking is the overall responsible person so any official gaps [e.g. lack of risk asessment] is, in my opinion, automaticially their responsibility until such time as specific parameters are identified and duties officially allocated speak to the clients insurer to clarify which area is common and which is not; this will help: NB you keep using the word client - expand please