This Practice Note summarises the key offences which can be committed under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA 1974) and the process for their prosecution in the criminal courts in England and Wales. For information on health and safety prosecutions in Scotland, see Practice Notes: Health and safety investigations in Scotland, Prosecution process for health and safety cases in Scotland and Sentencing health and safety cases in Scotland. Main duties imposed by HSWA 1974 It is an offence for an employer to fail to comply with a duty specified in HSWA 1974, ss 2–4 and 6–7. HSWA 1974, ss 2–4 and 6 set out the general duties of employers, the self-employed, persons who have control of premises, and manufacturers and suppliers to ensure the health and safety of employees and members of the public who may be affected by their work activities. HSWA 1974, s 2 imposes a duty on employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of

This Practice Note sets out the consequences that can apply for failure to comply with a party’s or legal practitioner’s disclosure obligations. For guidance on the commonly encountered issues, see Practice Note: Failure to comply with disclosure obligations—commonly encountered issues. Note: this Practice Note does not consider any specific consequences as a result of failing to comply with CPR PD 57AD. For general guidance on the Disclosure Scheme, see: Disclosure Scheme (Business & Property Division)—overview. Note: not all claims proceeding in the Business and Property Division are subject to the Disclosure Scheme under CPR PD 57AD—for further guidance, see: Which disclosure rules apply to my claim—flowchart? CPR 31.21 provides that a party who fails to disclose or permit inspection of a document may not rely on that document without the court's permission to do so. There are also various case management powers available to the court which may be used where a party is in default of a rule, practice direction or court order. These

This Practice Note sets out the commonly encountered issues as a result of a failure to comply with disclosure obligations. .It does not consider any specific consequences as a result of failing to comply with CPR PD 57AD. For general guidance on the Disclosure Scheme, see: Disclosure Scheme (Business & Property Division)—overview. Note, not all claims proceeding in the Business and Property Division are subject to the Disclosure Scheme under CPR PD 57AD—for further guidance, see: Which disclosure rules apply to my claim—flowchart? Can a trial be adjourned because disclosure has not been completed? The court has the power to adjourn a hearing under CPR 3.1(2)(b) and also following a party’s application under CPR 29.5(1)(d) in a multi-track case. A failure to complete disclosure may be a ground for such an application, but it does not automatically follow that the trial will be adjourned in those circumstances. In Geoquip Marine Operations AG v Tower Resources Cameroon SA, the defendant argued at the start of

Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), a breach of planning control is subject to enforcement action. For these purposes, a breach of planning control means: • carrying out development without the required planning permission—this requires that unauthorised operations or a material change of use which constitute development within the meaning of TCPA 1990, s 55 have occurred, and that planning permission is required for that development and has not been obtained • failing to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted—this includes any of the limitations or conditions applied to individual permitted development rights in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, SI 2015/596 in England and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, SI 1995/418 in Wales See Practice Note: Planning—enforcement for more information on planning breaches. TCPA 1990, s 171A defines ‘taking enforcement action’ as the issue of an enforcement notice, the service of a breach of condition notice, and

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that a defendant who participated in adjudication proceedings but failed to raise specific jurisdictional challenges appropriately had waived the right to raise those specific arguments at the enforcement stage, emphasising that general reservations of rights cannot preserve unspecified challenges that would undermine adjudication's ‘pay now, argue later’ purpose. Applying Bresco v Lonsdale, the court found that the defendant had waived reliance on a ‘wrong contracting entity’ objection that was never properly advanced before the adjudicator. Even if it had been preserved, the argument had only ‘fanciful prospects’ of success. A crystallisation challenge was similarly rejected, the court reiterated that disputes need not be particularised with forensic precision and that crystallisation objections rarely succeed. Summary judgment enforcing the award was therefore granted.

This Flowchart outlines the three principal failure to disclose money laundering offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002). It maps the key decision points for employees in the regulated sector, Money Laundering

Personal Injury analysis: The appeal of FB v Princess Alexandra Hospital looked at whether a junior doctor was negligent in failing to elicit an adequate medical history. Caroline Klage, partner and head of the child brain injury team at Bolt Burdon Kemp, talks us through the particulars of this case.

Employment analysis: If a claimant does not actively advance before the tribunal a claim for an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 (in respect of a failure by the employer to provide a written statement of employment particulars), probably by including it in the ET1 and then by pursuing the issue at the hearing, the employment tribunal is under no obligation to consider and rule on the issue of its own motion, according to the EAT.

Immigration analysis: In this landmark discrimination case, the claimant, a victim of the ‘Windrush scandal’, successfully challenged the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) to drop certain key recommendations made in the Windrush Lessons Learned Review (WLLR). The Administrative Court held that the decision amounted to indirect discrimination against Windrush victims, contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), violated the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) and also breached a procedural legitimate expectation that there would be a consultation with relevant stakeholders. There was neither a breach of a substantive legitimate expectation nor of the SSHD’s Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside duty of inquiry. The judgment also includes an interesting discussion as to whether statements made by ministers in Parliament could give rise to a substantive legitimate expectation. Written by Eva Doerr, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

Employment analysis: The new rule 37(5) of the amended EAT Rules, which came into force on 30 September 2023, applies to all appeals and not only to appeals instituted on or after that date. For the purposes of rule 37(5), as applied in relation to an appeal instituted prior to 30 September 2023, the failure to include the Grounds of Resistance as part of the documentation lodged with the Notice of Appeal was not a ‘minor’ error and therefore the EAT could not extend time for the appeal under rule 37(5), according to the EAT.

This Practice Note explains the corporate criminal offence of failing to prevent bribery under section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010). This was the first economic crime offence of its kind in attaching culpability to failing to prevent an offence that was committed on the company’s behalf. See Practice Note: Corporate criminal liability. For more information on the development of corporate criminal liability, see Practice Note: Corporate criminal liability reform—tracker. Corporate criminal liability for bribery—section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 The failing to prevent bribery offence can only be committed by relevant commercial organisations (RCOs), not individuals. RCOs are defined in BA 2010 as: • bodies incorporated, or partnerships formed, under the law of any part of the UK, that carry on a business anywhere, ie within the UK or elsewhere, or • bodies incorporated, or partnerships formed, anywhere that carry on any business in the UK A business includes a trade or profession. An RCO is guilty of failing to prevent bribery if a person associated with it bribes another

The Criminal Finances Act 2017 (CFA 2017) introduced a corporate offence of failure to prevent facilitation of tax evasion, which came into force on 30 September 2017. The government has also issued guidance which sets out its expectations on compliance systems. This Practice Note is based on the final legislation and guidance. The government guidance should be considered and applied in a risk-based and proportionate way. This includes taking account of the size, nature and complexity of your organisation. A small organisation and a large multinational organisation may implement the principles in very different ways: what is reasonable for a small business in a low-risk sector may be entirely unreasonable for a large business in a high-risk sector. The offences There are two potential offences, depending on whether the tax evaded is owed in the UK or in a foreign country. Each offence has three core stages, all of which must exist for criminal liability to arise: For more guidance on the component parts of the offences, see Practice Note: Failure