ABSTRACT
The introduction of the CDM legislation saw a string of prosecutions by the Health and Safety Executive (which is the enforcement arm of the Health and Safety Commission) together with the publication of formal amendments to the standard forms of contract by the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) and the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). This gave meat to the bones of the regulations by showing the type of incident that would be prosecuted and the effect of health and safety issues on the normal contractual relationship. In terms of the prosecutions, the Health and Safety Executive followed the spirit of the legislation and focused upon the ‘client’ as target, but at the same time held the designer responsible, in some cases, for failing to warn the client adequately of his responsibilities. The case law is considered later in the chapter and it highlights the increasing importance of architects being familiar with and adhering to health and safety legislation. In terms of the amendments to the standard forms of contract, these have increased the grounds for extensions of time and loss and expense for the contractor arising from the performance of the office-holders for health and safety purposes: the planning supervisor and the principal contractor.
