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.

    46/132 (page 28)
    No. 138.—OFFICES, SHOPS AND RAILWAY PREMISES ACT 1963 persons working therein, such as self-employed persons and persons employed by outside contractors (John Summers & Sons, Lid., v. Frost, supra; Wigley v. British Vinegars, Lid., [1962] 3 All E.R. 161, H.L.). Sub-s. (3). This subsection corresponds to s. 15 (1) (a) of the Factories Act 1961 (41 Halsbury’s Statutes (2nd Edn.) 259). In motion. It is submitted that these words bear the same meaning as in sub-s. (4) of the present section; see the note, “‘In motion or use’, infra. Sub-s. (4). This subsection corresponds to s. 16 of the Factories Act 1961 (41 Halsbury’s Statutes (2nd Edn.) 259). It indicates, without imposing any separate and distinct obligation, how and when the duty under s. 17 (1) to (3) is to be carried out, and it also provides an exception to the obligation to fence thereunder (Smith v. Morris Motors, Lid., [1949] 2 All E.R. 715, D.C.). Properly maintained. This expression occurs in the Factories Act 1961; for example, see s. 22 (1) of that Act (41 Halsbury’s Statutes (2nd Edn.) 264). The word ‘“‘maintained”’ is expressly defined in that Act (by s. 176 (1) thereof (41 Halsbury’s Statutes (2nd Edn.) 407) ), but there is no such definition in the present Act. None- theless, it is submitted that, as in the case of the Factories Act I961, s. 22 (1) (see Galashields Gas Co., Ltd. v. O’Donnell (or Millar), [1949] 1 All E.R. 319; [1949] A.C. 275, H.L.), the obligation properly to maintain is here an absolute one, and describes a result to be achieved rather than the means of achieving it. In motion or use. The interpretation of the corresponding phrase in s. 16 of the Factories Act 1937 (‘‘in motion or in use’’) was discussed in Richard Thomas & Bald- wins, Ltd. v. Cummings, [1955] 1 All E.R. 285, H.L., where it was held that ‘in motion”’ was not the same thing as “‘in movement’”’. Following this decision, the Court of Appeal, in Knight v. Leamington Spa Courier, Lid., [1961] 2 All E.R. 666, held that the slow sporadic rotation or intermittent movement of machinery intended to place it more advantageously for cleaning or repair did not constitute its being “‘in motion or in use’’. The court emphasised the difficulty of giving any general ruling on the meaning of the words, “‘in motion or in use’’, and stated that the question was largely one of fact and degree having regard to the circumstances of the particular case. Necessarily exposed. The burden of proving that the excepting words apply lies upon the employer, who must prove that the parts required to be fenced were necessarily exposed for the operation actually being done at the material time (Nash v. High Duty Alloys, Lid., [1947] 1 All E.R. 363; [1947] 1 K.B. 377, C.A.). For examination ... lubrication or adjustment. These words do not include repair (Richard Thomas & Baldwins, Lid. v. Cummings, [1955] I All E.R. 285, H.L.) or cleaning (Knight v. Leamington Spa Courier, Lid., [1961] 2 All E.R. 666, C.A.). Sub-s. (5): Age. A person attains a given age on the first moment of the day preceding the corresponding anniversary of his birth; see Re Shurey, Savory v. Shurey, [1918] 1 Ch. 263; and cf. R. v. Scoffin, [1930] 1 K.B. 741, at p. 743. The Minister. J.e., the Minister of Labour; see s. go (1), post. Offences. For provisions as to offences, see ss. 63 et seg., 70, 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. 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. 18. Avoidance of exposure of young persons to danger in cleaning machinery.—(1) No young person employed to work in premises to which this Act applies shall clean any machinery used as, or forming, part of the equipment of the premises if doing so exposes him to risk of injury from a moving part of that or any adjacent machinery. (2) In this section “‘ young person ”’ means a person who has not attained the age of eighteen. NOTES General effect of section. Persons under eighteen must not clean machinery if in doing so they are exposed to risk of injury. This section may be compared with the corresponding provisions as to factories contained in s. 20 of the Factories Act 1961 (41 Halsbury’s Statutes (2nd Edn.) 263 and Redgrave’s Factories Acts (zoth Edn.) p. 65). It should be noted that, in contrast with s. 20 of that Act, the present Act does not prohibit the cleaning of machines by women over eighteen. Sub-s. (1): Premises to which this Act applies. See ss. 1 to 3, ante. Clean. In Taylor v. Dawson (Mark) & Son, Lid., [1911] 1 K.B. 145, a child was removing fluff from the rollers of a machine in motion. The fluff would have clogged the machine had it not been removed, but it had a commercial value, and was in fact sold. It was held that the child was ‘‘cleaning’”’ the machine.