Issue 40

Issue 40 - October 2003 The House of Lords decided that Junttan could be prosecuted under both section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work Act and for breach of the 1992 Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 (HSWA) following the death of a piling rig operator. This was important because the maximum penalty under the HSWA was a fine of £20,000, while the machinery supply regulations set a maximum fine of just £5,000. Click to download PDF

Issue 40 - October 2003 The Court of Appeal said that a letter must provide clear evidence of the contracting party's identity if it is to be used to evidence a contract in writing as required by section 107(2)(c) of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act. Equally, there must be clear evidence that all parties concerned were in agreement if a party claims that an adjudicator has been asked to make a binding decision as to his jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal followed the decision of His Honour Judge Gillilland QC in Nordot v Siemens. Click to download PDF

Issue 40 - October 2003 Following a trial where the defendants were successful, they sought their costs on an indemnity basis. HHJ Bowsher QC said the relevant test was whether or not it was just that the onus should be on the claimant to pay the costs. The Judge ruled it was just in this case as he felt from the outset that the pleaded and supporting evidence would never have stood up. Click to download PDF