Duties of employers and the self-
employed to non-employees – premises
Certain duties are imposed upon employers and the self-
employed in regard to people who are not employees
but who come on to their business (not domestic) pre-
mises. The duty is to make sure, so far as is reasonably
practicable, that the premises and the means of getting
in and out of them, and any plant or substance on the
premises, are safe and without risk to health. These
duties also apply to a landlord who is letting business
premises. Failure to comply with these duties may lead
to prosecution.
Once again, a wide variety of people is covered, such
as window-cleaners and painters, the employees of con-
tractors maintaining lifts or installing central heating.
The actual employer owes the duties of an employer to
these people also, and must, for example, set up a safe
system of working. However, the occupier of the pre-
mises owes the duties we have been looking at in regard
to injuries received from defects in the premises or
plant or a substance on them. Obviously, the occupier
can assume that the employees of contractors will take
proper steps, as trained people, to avoid the risks which
are usually associated with the job.Duties in regard to harmful emissions
in the atmosphere
The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 allows the
Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory
Reform to control by regulations the emission into the
atmosphere from premises of noxious or offensive sub-
stances and for making harmless and inoffensive such
substances as may be emitted. The provisions are con-
cerned only with air pollution. Other forms of pollution,
such as the discharge of effluent into rivers, are not
controlled by them.
The main regulations made so far under this head are
entitled the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health
Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2677).General duties of those who make,
import or supply articles of equipment
or substances, or who erect or install
equipment
This part of the 1974 Act creates the following duties:
1 To ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the
article, e.g. a machine, is so designed and constructed as
to be safe and without risks to health when properly
used or, in the case of a substance, e.g. cyanide, is safe
and without risk to health when properly used.
2 To carry out or arrange for the carrying out of such
testing and examination as may be necessary for the
performance of the duty laid down in 1 above.
3 To take such steps as may be necessary to make sure
that there is available as regards the use of the article
or substance at work adequate information about the
use for which it is designed or made and has been tested,
and about any conditions necessary to make sure that
when the article or substance is put to that use it will be
safe and without risk to health.Part 4Business resources
506
The Court of Appeal did not accept this. Mr Mara’s
company had, as its undertaking, the provision of clean-
ing services. It appeared from the facts that the way it
chose to carry out that undertaking, in this case, was to
do the cleaning and also leave machines and other
equipment on the store’s premises with permission for
employees of the store to use them and with the know-
ledge that they would in fact use them. The unsafe cable
formed part of the equipment. The failure to remove or
replace the cable was a clear breach by Mr Mara’s com-
pany of its duty both to its own employees and also to
the employees of the store.
Comment. The case shows the wide ambit of the rel-
evant law. The liability of a director for offences by the
company is set out in the 1974 Act which provides that
where an offence is committed by a body corporate then
its officers, e.g. directors and secretary, are also liable
if the offence was committed with their consent or con-
nivance. There is also a civil claim for damages for this
kind of breach. The above case was concerned solely
with the criminal offence.
It should also be noted that the courts are allowed to
impose fines of up to £20,000 for breaches of the rel-
evant legislation. Furthermore, the Company Directors
Disqualification Act 1986 applies if there is a prosecu-
tion of a director on indictment in the Crown Court (see
Chapter 6 ). A director who is convicted of an indict-
able offence may be disqualified by the court, and this
was done in RvChapman(1992) at Lewes Crown Court
where a director was convicted of an indictable offence
under Health and Safety legislation arising out of the
running of a dangerous quarry. He was fined £5,000 and
disqualified from being a company director for two years
(the maximum period is 15 years).