IMHO it is the employer's responsibility to report.  The PC will need to make a record in the Accident Book and keep for as long as necessary.

Unless required on contract document the Client does not need to know.

RIDDOR.

Hi Mark

Do you mean "RIDDOR" reportable or all accidents?

If it is a RIDDOR reportable accident or other event, then RIDDOR 2013 tells you who is the "responsible person" is in Regulation 3:

Responsible person

3.—(1) In these Regulations, the “responsible person” is—

(a) in relation to an injury, death or dangerous occurrence reportable under regulation 4, 5, 6 or 7 or recordable under regulation 12(1)(b) involving—

       (i) an employee, that employee’s employer; or

       (ii) a person not at work or a self-employed person, or in relation to any other dangerous            occurrence, the person who by means of their carrying on any undertaking was in control of the premises where the reportable or recordable incident happened, at the time it happened; or CONTINUES

So, if the person is an employee then the employer. If the employee is employed by a sub-contractor, then that sub-contractor, though in practice many Principal Contractors end up doing it themselves particularly if they don't fully trust their subbies (and, in some cases, simply to have a handle on how many incidents are happening under their oversight).

If the injured party works for an Agency then it will depend on their terms of engagement as to whether they are employed by the Agency or self-employed.

If the person is self-employed, the person in control of the premises, which in this case is likely to be the Principal Contractor. NOTE that RIDDOR 2013 shifted the responsibility from the self-employed who previously were required to report their own injuries with HSE research indicated that in almost all cases they didn't (Underreporting circa 90%).

There is NO explicit duty to investigate ANYTHING under RIDDOR. However, the need for investigation of RIDDOR-reportable and other incidents is implicit under HSWA and, in particular, the duty under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to review arrrangements for managing health and safety.

The Client may be in the frame so may well set out its requirements for communication of incidents on their site in Contract specifications and/or Pre Construction Information.

I would expect the Principal Contractor to set out its requirements for investigation in the Construction Phase Plab either directly or by cross-reference to other documentation.

In terms of the duty to report a RIDDOR injury this is relatively clear in the regulations.

In regard to investigation I wouold suggest the following:

1. The PC would have included in the Construction Phase Plan the need for all accidents to be reported to them: This gives the implicit suggestion that accidents and required investigations will be subject to review by the PC. 

2. Any future claim by the injured individual will undoubtedly find its way to the PC and possibly the Client as they have the deepest pockets. How would this appear if neither party has a record of the investigation or the investigation is not completely 'unbiased' - I have seen plenty of draft investigations that conclude those to blame for the accident is the PC or Client, these poor investigations need to be challenged. 

3. Not all investigations are carried out by H&S Professionals, often seemingly minor injury investigations are carried out by works supervisors following a tick box form. These minor injuries can often come back to bite.

Hi Peter

I take your points on board.

It is true that PC/Client sometimes take the view (often it is an approach taken at the very outset of the contract) that the subbie is responsible for everything H&S, and that they try to 'push' the blame down stream. My point was that the PC should be involved in incident investigations even if just a review. It should be a team effort - which unfortunately, often it is not.

As far as carrying out investigation is concerned, I take your point that the line manager/supervisor is the one who would be most knowledgable in gleening the details surrounding the incident/injury, but they often have competing demands. I was trying to make the point that often the initial steps in the investigation of incidents (that eventually turn out to be reportable) are often not seen as potential reportable by supervisor/line managers and thus the investigation that they carryout is basic. You might even say in some cases defensive. 

I accept your point that investigations carried out by H&S Professionals also tend to follow tick box straight jackets - based on regulatory/company requirements.