Breach Of Statutory Duty After The Enterprise And Regulatory Reform Act 2013
The tort of ‘breach of statutory duty’ (BSD) operates at the intersection of private and public law by delivering a civil remedy for these whose injuries had been sustained as a consequence of a statutory breach. The case of Groves v Lord Wimborne (1898) established that there could be combined civil actions for prevalent law negligence and for breach of statutory duty. At present, civil liability in employer’s liability claims is nearly exclusively determined by reference to breach of statutory regulations. They will also be able to take into account wider cultural problems inside the organisation, such as attitudes or practices that tolerated overall health and security breaches.
In addition, we are most likely to see considerable debate more than the extent to which the typical law duties on employers have themselves been shaped, amended or even designed by the ongoing statutory wellness and safety framework. Nonetheless, for private injury … Read the rest >>>
Concerns often arise when men and women confuse civil law obligations with an organisation’s duties below well being and safety law. Section 47(2) of the HSWA 1974 had provided a correct of action for breach of a duty contained in a wellness and security regulation (a regulation produced under section 15 of the HSWA 1974) if that breach triggered harm. This web page clarifies the differences in between the two kinds of law and how health and safety law applies to voluntary organisations.
The Löfstedt report published in November 2011 identified that wellness and security regulations imposed strict liability on employers, producing them liable for injuries suffered by their employees at work, regardless of the extent to which the employer in question had sought to comply with its overall health and security duties and regardless of whether it had taken all affordable methods to protect its staff from harm. As a result, it is no longer sufficient to draw a dotted line between a breach of duty and an injury in order to establish civil liability (as if it was ever that simple…). This of course is all element of the maelstrom related with ‘red tape’ – a convenient ruse to rid the UK of the ‘burden’ of overall health and safety laws. Ensure the safety and absence of dangers to well being in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of … 
As with all branches of UK law, wellness and security law can be criminal or civil and it can be defined frequent law or statue primarily based. In sensible terms, if an employer was in breach of a statutory duty and that breach led to an employee suffering injury (i.e. if it could be proved that, had the regulation been properly applied, the injury would not have occurred.), then the employer was liable for damages. I think, although I could be incorrect (gasp!) that there is a 3 year window of ‘opportunity’ (?) to make a claim against an employer in regards to breach of statutory duty.
The pursuer (claimant to these in E&W) was employed by the defendant as a shop assistant. It was held by the Court of Appeal that an action will lie in respect of private injury suffered by a workman employed in a factory through a breach by his employer, the occupier of the factory, of the duty to retain fencing for harmful machinery imposed on him by s.five(4) of the Factory and Workshop Act 1878. It also explains why the Government has introduced an amendment that goes beyond strict liability and would, as it stands, apply to civil situations involving breaches of statutory duty beneath workplace regulations. They held that this was a widespread law concept which had been incorrectly applied in this case and was inconsistent with the extent of the duty beneath PUWER.