The Offices, shops and railway premises Act, 1963 / With introduction and annotations by Ian Fife and E. Anthony Machin. Being a reprint of Butterworths Annotated Legislative Service, Statutes Supplement no. 138.

  • United Kingdom
Date:
1963
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The Offices, shops and railway premises Act, 1963 / With introduction and annotations by Ian Fife and E. Anthony Machin. Being a reprint of Butterworths Annotated Legislative Service, Statutes Supplement no. 138. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    31/132 (page 13)
    SECTION 5 Murray v. Walnut Cabinet Works, Ltd., The Times, October 19th, 1954 and Carroll v. North British Locomotive Co., Ltd., 1957 S.L.T. (Sh. Ct.) 2; and compare the reserva- tion of Denning, L.J., in Ebbs v. James Whitson & Co., Lid., [1952] 2 All E.R. 192, C.A., at p. 195). Carroll v. North British Locomotive Co., Lid., supra, involved an action for breach (inter alia) of s. 1 (b) of the Factories Act 1937 (9 Halsbury’s Statutes (2nd Edn.) 996) (a provision requiring the regular cleaning of workroom floors) and Sheriff- Substitute Walker, after full consideration, held, on a preliminary plea-in-law, that there was a right to damages for that breach. It is therefore submitted that a breach of a provision of s. 4 of the present Act, or of regulations made thereunder, gives rise, in like manner, to an action for damages. In comparing the provisions of the present Act with those of the Factories Act 1961, it must be borne in mind that whereas the latter Act is specifically divided into (inter alia) Part I Health (General Provisions), Part II Safety (General Provisions) and Part III Welfare (General Provisions), the corresponding provisions of the present Act are not so divided, but fall under the general rubric, Health, Safety and Welfare of Employees (General Provisions), which precedes s. 4. In the case of Part III of the Factories Act 1961, it has been held that some of the welfare provisions therein con- tained have a purely welfare outlook, which may or may not give rise to civil liability, whilst others impinge on matters of health and safety, a breach of which does give rise to civil liability (see Reid v. Westfield Paper Co., Lid., 1957 S.C. 218, First Division of the Court of Session). It is therefore submitted that a breach of a provision of the present Act which is cognate to a health provision of the Factories Act 1961, gives rise to ciyil liability, whereas a breach of a provision of the present Act which is cognate to a welfare provision of the latter Act may or may not, according to its tenor, give rise to civil liability. Provisions of the present Act which appear to be cognate to health provisions of the Factories Act 1961 are ss. 4 to 9, and those which appear to be cognate to welfare provisions of the latter Act are ss. Io to 15. The question, whether the health and welfare provisions of the Factories Act 1961 give rise to civil liability, is fully discussed in Redgrave’s Factories Acts (20th Edn.) General Introduction, pp. 1xxx ef seq. For provisions relating to the cleanliness of windows and skylights, see s. 8 (3), post; for those relating to the cleanliness of sanitary conveniences, see s. 9 (2), post; and for those relating to the cleanliness of washing places, see s. Io (2), post. Sub-s. (1): Premises to which this Act applies. See ss. 1 to 3, anie. Special provisions as to common parts. For special provisions as to the clean- liness of the common parts of buildings, part of which consists of premises to which this Act applies, see ss. 42 (1), (2), (5) and 43 (1), (2), post. Offences. For provisions as to offences, see ss. 63 et seg., 86 (1), post. Enforcement, etc. For provisions as to enforcement, etc., see ss. 52 et seq., post; and see also ss. 61, 83 (5), post. Statutory nuisances. For dirt, etc., as statutory nuisances, see the Public Health Act 1936, s. 92 (1) (130 Statutes Supp. 141), and the Public Health (London) Act 1936, Ss. 82 (1) (15 Halsbury’s Statutes (2nd Edn.) 935). See also s. 92 (2) of the first- mentioned Act and s. 82 (2) of the last-mentioned Act. As from 1st April 1965 the Public Health (London) Act 1936 is repealed by the London Government Act 1963, s. 93 (1), Sch. 18, Part II, and by s. 40 of that Act the Public Health Act 1936 is applied thoughout the Greater London Area. Definitions. For ‘‘employed’’, see s. 90 (1), (4), post; for “fuel storage premises’, see s. 1 (3) (a) (v), (5), ante; for “‘the Minister’ and ‘‘week’’. see s. 90 (1), post. See also as to ‘‘. . . work in the premises’, s. 90 (3), post. Regulations under this section. No regulations had been made under this section up to 14th October, 1963. For provisions as to regulations, see s. 80, post; and see also s. 90 (5), post. 5. Overcrowding.—(1) No room comprised in, or constituting, premises to which this Act applies shall, while work is going on therein, be so overcrowded as to cause risk of injury to the health of persons working therein; and in determining, for the purposes of this subsection, whether any such room is so overcrowded as aforesaid, regard shall be had (amongst other things) not only to the number of persons who may be expected to be working in the room at any time but also to the space in the room occupied by furniture, furnishings, fittings, machinery, plant, equipment, appliances and other things (whether similar to any of those aforesaid or not). (2) The number of persons habitually employed at a time to work in such a room as aforesaid shall not be such that the quotient derived by dividing by that number the number which expresses in square feet the area of the surface of the floor of the room is less than forty or the quotient