74
|
P a g e
Cuthbert was using an open bucket, there was a good deal of vapour in the tank. The
broken bulb caused a flash fire in which Mr. Cuthbert was badly burned.
RGP Ltd was convicted of an offence under section 2 of the 1974 Act, and Octel Ltd of an
offence under section 3. Octel Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal. It was argued on
their behalf that section 3 did not involve liability for the actions of independent
contractors.
The appeal failed. The court ruled that it was a question of fact in each case whether an
activity which caused a risk to the health and safety of persons (other than employees)
amounted to the conduct of an undertaking. The term “undertaking” was taken as
meaning “enterprise” or “business” and the cleaning, maintenance or repair of plant,
machinery or buildings necessary for carrying on the business was part of the
undertaking (whether carried out by the client’s employees or by an independent
contractor). Therefore Octel Ltd was liable under section 3(1).
As the tank was designated a major hazard site under the Control of Industrial Major
Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 (CIMAH Regulations) (as amended), A Ltd was
obliged to submit a safety case to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The case
submitted required contractors to comply with a permit-to-work system. However, the
system was not properly implemented.
A landmark decision for clients determining that they exert control over the selection
and activities of contract staff, contractors (by way of their undertaking) and as such,
clients must take effective steps to ensure that the work is completed without risks to
health or safety.
manslaughter – behaviour not reckless, not gross negligence
absolute and qualified duty – practicable and reasonably practicable
fault lay with someone else- not guilty due to technicality
This concludes this study book however of course your learning will continue and
would encourage all candidates to research and study further the subject of law.
