HTM, R v

HTM, R v

The phrase 'so far as is reasonably practicable' in section 2(1) of the 1974 Act allows the employer to adduce evidence of the likelihood of risk (foreseeability) and the acts or defaults of employees in establishing that all reasonably practicable steps were taken. Regulation 21 does not operate to preclude this,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: R; Respondent: HTM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Under Section 35(1) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1966
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Duty of Care, Reasonable Practicability, Foreseeability, Vicarious Liability, Interpretation of Statutory Duties
Criminal Law Health and Safety Law Employer's Duty of Care Reasonable Practicability Foreseeability Vicarious Liability Interpretation of Statutory Duties

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Appellant

HTM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Under Section 35(1) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1966

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of foreseeability is relevant to the question of reasonable practicability under section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether Regulation 21 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 precludes the employer from relying on acts or defaults of employees in defence

Ratio Decidendi

The phrase 'so far as is reasonably practicable' in section 2(1) of the 1974 Act allows the employer to adduce evidence of the likelihood of risk (foreseeability) and the acts or defaults of employees in establishing that all reasonably practicable steps were taken. Regulation 21 does not operate to preclude this, as the statutory duty is not a defence but an element of the offence itself.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Recorder's rulings affirmed; the defendants may adduce evidence of foreseeability and employee conduct in their defence.