The IET is carrying out some important updates between 17-30 April and all of our websites will be view only. For more information, read this Announcement

Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Subscribers 17 subscribers
  • Views 656 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

EAWR section 28 - Defence

E95

I appreciate this is not a legal forum however I suspect there will be some good guidance within this forum.

I notice regulation 28 of Electricity At Work Regulations 1989 states that a valid defence to a breach of regulations is that: "In any proceedings for an offence consisting of a contravention of regulations 4(4), 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 or 25, it shall be a defence for any person to prove that he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of that offence."

My question is, what defence is valid for a breach of maintenance Reg 4 (2)? and why is this exempt?

If anyone is aware of any case studies of incidents due to this I would be keen to read them

Regards,

E95

Parents
  • 0

    My question is, what defence is valid for a breach of maintenance Reg 4 (2)? and why is this exempt?

    The other regulations already have a "as far as reasonably practical" get-out clause. The ones that don't are "absolute" requirements - so if it goes wrong the assumption is that they duty holder was at fault - I think what they're trying to say is that if you did all you possibly could (i.e. way beyond reasonably practical) that might form a defence when in court.

       - Andy.

Reply
  • 0

    My question is, what defence is valid for a breach of maintenance Reg 4 (2)? and why is this exempt?

    The other regulations already have a "as far as reasonably practical" get-out clause. The ones that don't are "absolute" requirements - so if it goes wrong the assumption is that they duty holder was at fault - I think what they're trying to say is that if you did all you possibly could (i.e. way beyond reasonably practical) that might form a defence when in court.

       - Andy.

Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines