I'd be grateful for your help.
I'm researching the principle of "reasonably practicability" specifically as it applies in prosecutions of poll and gas companies. My preliminary thesis is that what is deemed "reasonably practicable" by the courts may NOT be reasonably practical in terms of doing it at the worksite. Can someone point me to legal cases (criminal not civil) in the oil and gas sector?
Many thanks, Bill

Beat me to the Case Law Ray

Edwards v. National Coal Board (1949)

“Reasonably Practicable”

You need to be sure of the exact meaning of this phrase and to be able to distinguish it from other similar phrases which are quite different in interpretation. It appears early on in the HSWA in Section 2(1).

“It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.”

Although a very important phrase in HSWA, the Act itself does not contain a definition of the expression. To find its precise meaning you have to refer to case law. In Edwards v. National Coal Board (1949), a miner was killed when a section of the road on which he was travelling subsided. The section of the road concerned had no timber supports, although other sections were properly supported. The Coal Board stated that the cost of supporting all roads was prohibitive in relation to the risk. Lord Asquith, the judge in the case, said that a balance had to be struck in deciding whether it would have been reasonably practicable to have taken the precaution of providing supports for the section of road which collapsed. The balance was struck by weighing the quantum of risk involved (the danger of collapse and loss of life) against the quantum of sacrifice involved (the cost, time and trouble). If there was a gross disproportion between the two and the risk was insignificant to the cost, there would be no requirement to take the additional precautions. However, in this particular case, the risk was not an insignificant one, and the costs of making safe should have been applied.

Therefore, to carry out a duty “so far as is reasonably practicable” means that the degree of risk has to be balanced against the time, trouble and cost involved in taking the measures necessary to avoid the risk.

If the measures are so disproportionate to the risk involved that it would be unreasonable to take the measures, then there can be no obligation to take them. The greater the risk the more likely it is that it would be reasonable to go to the expense of taking the measures. In a nutshell, if the consequences and the degree of risk are small and the cost of the measures to reduce the risk is very expensive, it would be unreasonable to incur that cost. The size of the company or its financial resources are not a consideration in arriving at a decision.

It may be prudent not to lose sight of the whole term "so far as is reasonably practicable".
Whilst some may see that as pedantry, I believe that the term is very specific (and was intended to be so) as it enables a wider and more objective consideration of 'doing enough' as opposed to doing ALL that is reasonably practicable.

At the risk of being considered pedantic, keep in mind that for chemical exposure reasonably practicable only applies to prevention not control.

Regulation 7(1) of COSHH states: Every employer shall ensure that the exposure of his employees to a substance hazardous to health is either prevented or, where this is not reasonably practicable, adequately controlled.

Unfortunately, COSHH does not then state explicitly what is meant by 'adequately controlled', at least, not for skin exposure!

Chris

Bill,

There are two views to consider when examining the term “reasonably practicable”. The first is the employer view ad the second is the court view.

When planning work, you include adequate controls to prevent injury (or harm to health etc.) from identified risks. This involves considering how harm might materialise, and establishing controls to prevent that harm. In accepting that each control has a cost associated, the greater and more complex the number of controls established, the higher the cost. There comes a point when the advantage gained from the extra cost does not translate into a perceived reduction in risk that is significant enough to justify the cost of the control. At that point, you have done what is “reasonably practicable”.

The work is undertaken, there are no injuries, and all is well in the world. However, if there is an incident, most particularly a fatality, it is difficult to establish that the additional cost involved in preventing a fatality could not be justified, given the benefit of hindsight that the courts have. The courts will generally consider the outcome, i.e. there was a fatality, and not the risk exposure and level of risk control established, when determining whether or not the duty in “reasonably practicable” was discharged. There is an abundance of case law on this. The one above pre-dates HASWA by a number years, but (I think) is still the yardstick.

There are a few exceptions to the above. The one that come most immediately to mind is risk associated with asbestos. Courts will generally consider the exposure potential, i.e. risk, from a lack of control more than the actual outcome.

Ken