MURLAC Limited is totally committed to meeting its responsibilities below the Overall health and Security at Perform Act 1974, the Management of Overall health and Safety at Operate Regulations 1999, and related protective legislation, each as an Employer and as a Organization. It was held by the Court of Appeal that an action will lie in respect of personal injury suffered by a workman employed in a factory by means of a breach by his employer, the occupier of the factory, of the duty to retain fencing for risky 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 circumstances involving breaches of statutory duty below workplace regulations. They held that this was a widespread law notion which had been incorrectly applied in this case and was inconsistent with the extent of the duty below PUWER.
In addition to these claims, if a worker with duty for overall health and safety problems raises a concern about a threat to wellness and safety in the workplace and is subjected to a detriment as a result, he/she may be able to bring a claim for victimisation or for unfair dismissal. In most circumstances the consequences involve monetary fines and in some cases ( such as an officer’s duty to workout due diligence under the harmonised WH&S legislation ), offenders can be imprisoned.
For present purposes what is possibly most interesting about Lord Drummond Young’s choice is that even though the employer was located strictly liable for its breach of the applicable regulation, the common law case against it was not established. The typical law duty has been expressed by the court as, the affordable and prudent employer taking constructive thought for the security of his workers in the light of what he knows or ought to know.” (Stokes v Guest (1968) 1WLR 1886).
Professor Löfstedt regarded as the effect that the perception of a compensation culture has had in driving over-compliance with well being and safety at work regulations. At very first instance, the judge ruled that the absolute duty beneath the 1980 Regulations did not give rise to a correct of civil action. In most instances, it does not take a good stretch of the imagination to match a breach of 1 of the Regulations which have ‘gone missing’ from the individual injury lawyer’s arsenal to a single of these four duties. Claimant’s claims of negligence and breach of statutory duty upheld at trial, and damages awarded.
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 believe, while 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.
