At Last a Review on Health and Safety is Going on

[Moosey]

You're looking at the wrong side of the claim. The problem with costs rests with the person defending, whom you cannot "tell not to bother" because they didn't file the suit.

 

But, if someone issues a claim against you, and it fails, you are entitled to your costs. You can recover costs by charging orders on houses, enforcing judgments with debt collectors and similar.

 

I agree it sucks to be a defendant though sometimes. Same as in criminal, if you have some cash, and you're acquitted of something, you'll still have to pay your costs to defend yourself. It's wrong.

[dosxuk]

You don't have a source because it is totally bogus.

 

This doesn't stop morons from believing it though.

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/september.htm

 

That link doesn't say it hasn't happened, and in fact infers that conkers have been banned / restricted by some schools, but that it should be "a discipline issue, not health and safety".

 

This is a good page to summarise the HSE position: http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/apr10.htm

 

The reality

We’ve said it all before, but there are still too many reports that HSE and health and safety law are responsible for all sorts of bans – cheese-rolling events, knitting in hospitals and even toothpicks!

 

In reality HSE has banned very little outright, apart from a few high-risk exceptions like asbestos, which kills around 4000 people a year.

 

Too often health and safety is used as a convenient excuse, but it’s time to challenge this and remind people to focus on the real risks – those that are still causing people to be killed, injured or made ill at work.

 

Challenge the myths, tackle real risks!

[HeadingNorth]

But, if someone issues a claim against you, and it fails, you are entitled to your costs. You can recover costs by charging orders on houses, enforcing judgments with debt collectors and similar.

 

None of which is any use if the claimant is a tenant with no assets...

[HeadingNorth]

That link doesn't say it hasn't happened, and in fact infers that conkers have been banned / restricted by some schools, but that it should be "a discipline issue, not health and safety".

 

 

Precisely; they have never been officially banned by the HSE, but in at least one case, a headteacher had no choice but to ban them because otherwise the school could not afford its insurance policy.

[sccsux]

Ooh where's that one?!

 

I feel I'm missing out!

 

Two colons "::" with the word clap between them:).

 

If for some reason you won, the school's insurers would meet the claim.

 

Which is why the council always defend cases against/involving a school (they're contractually bound by their insurers) no matter how strong the evidence against them.

 

I wish, absolutlely would love, if people went on a course to learn about law. To get some idea of the facts, rather than what the media tell them.

 

My GF thinks it should be taught as part of the national curriculum (she's not a lawyer/solicitor - but has bitten the council - on her own, armed only with a GCE in law:D).

[max]

We were trying to arrange some young adults from a particular organisation to be stewards in a parade but the adult in charge said we couldn't have them due to H&S regulations. When pressed to explain he said that their insurers had insisted that any of his charges taking part in any activity in a public space would need disclaimers signed by their parents. These had been duly sent out but none of the parents had bothered to sign and return them.

 

So who was to blame?

The organisation for not following up

The parents for not signing

The insurers for insisting on disclaimers

H&S regulations

[Moosey]

None of which is any use if the claimant is a tenant with no assets...

 

Yup, I agree that's unfair.

 

EDIT with a big BUT....

 

As a solicitor, I'm not allowed to recommend Court proceedings to a client who has no funding in place to meet adverse costs as in your example. I couldn't do that. We ALWAYS ensure there's some funding so that the client's not left personally liable.

 

And - insurance does meet the cost of defending a claim against you, hence for business, it's important to be insured. Not so nice if you're an individual as a defendant admittedly.