Secrets, Media and the Law
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1985.tb00864.x |
| Published date | 01 September 1985 |
| Date | 01 September 1985 |
592
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
[Vol.
48
of
Metropolitan Properties Company
(F.
G.
C.) Ltd.
v.
Westminster
City Council6
an Industrial Tribunal upheld an improvement notice
requiring non-slip nosings on steps at the entrance of a block of
flats. The reasons given for this decision are brief but hinge on the
fact that there was a porter employed at the premises, although the
Tribunal recognised that this was really a somewhat artificial way
of
achieving public safety. That decision does not discuss whether
the flats were non-domestic premises and, indeed, it is not clear
whether the improvement notice had alleged breach of section
2
rather than section
4
of the Act,
so
the property owner may have
been served as an employer rather than as a controller of premises.
It is interesting that in the present case likewise although their
Lordships were satisfied that the common parts of the residential
premises were within the meaning of “non-domestic” premises,
they were of the view that there would nevertheless be no breach
of section
4
unless the lifts represented a hazard for visiting
workmen. Reading section
4(l)(b)
without reference to the general
purposes set out in section
l(l)(b)
it is not clear why this should be
so,
since section
4(l)(b)
imposes duties on the controller for the
protection
of
persons using premises
“.
. .
as a place of work
or
a
place where they may use plant
.
.
.’,
Since these are alternative
criteria, arguably section
4(l)(b)
taken on its own might be broad
enough to impose a duty for the protection of residents using the
lifts, independently of whether or not they were a hazard for such
persons as maintenance engineers. Indeed Parker and
Fox
L.JJ
were
so
concerned to find a breach of the duty to visiting workmen
that they overlooked that an important part of the work of a lift
maintenance engineer must be to rectify faults which might
endanger the public. Moreover the engineer may well have an
employer whose duty it is to ensure that he is trained to do this
without endangering hirn~elf.~
There may be an urgent need to impose, in the interests of
safety, regulatory control upon landlords of premises open to the
public, but it is submitted that the Health and Safety at Work Act
does not necessarily provide the means to do this. It is tempting
therefore to agree with the dissenting view of Eveleigh L.J. even
though contravention of an improvement notice does not appear,
as he suggests, to carry the penalty of imprisonment. However, the
complexities of the penalty provisions set out in section
33
is
another issue. BRENDA BARREIT*
SECRETS, MEDIA
AND
THE
LAW
Introduction
PRESS and television sometimes obtain information which someone
else does not want published. The scope for preventing publication
HIS
592018uL.S. See
Health and Safety Information Bulletin
No.
80, August 1982.
s.2;
if the engineer were self-employed he would be required under
s.3(2)
to
protect
himself.
Reader in Law, Middlesex Polytechnic.
To continue reading
Request your trial