Court where Roch J upheld their appeal. He found that the tribunal had misdirected itself – the notice alleged a breach of a criminal duty and it was for the council who had issued the notice to establish the existence of the risk not for the appellant to have the burden of proving that there was no such risk. His Lordship remarked that it would be inelegant if not absurd if the burden of proof in related criminal proceedings were different from that in an appeal against a notice. – – – In the following case, the tribunal was not persuaded by the appellant’s argument as to the cost of the remedial measures required in an improvement notice: BELHAVEN BREWERY COMPANY LTD v A MCLEAN (HM INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES) [1975] IRLR 370

doi:10.4324/9781843140504-167

Chapter

Court where Roch J upheld their appeal. He found that the tribunal had misdirected itself – the notice alleged a breach of a criminal duty and it was for the council who had issued the notice to establish the existence of the risk not for the appellant to have the burden of proving that there was no such risk. His Lordship remarked that it would be inelegant if not absurd if the burden of proof in related criminal proceedings were different from that in an appeal against a notice. – – – In the following case, the tribunal was not persuaded by the appellant’s argument as to the cost of the remedial measures required in an improvement notice: BELHAVEN BREWERY COMPANY LTD v A MCLEAN (HM INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES) [1975] IRLR 370

Chapter

Court where Roch J upheld their appeal. He found that the tribunal had misdirected itself – the notice alleged a breach of a criminal duty and it was for the council who had issued the notice to establish the existence of the risk not for the appellant to have the burden of proving that there was no such risk. His Lordship remarked that it would be inelegant if not absurd if the burden of proof in related criminal proceedings were different from that in an appeal against a notice. – – – In the following case, the tribunal was not persuaded by the appellant’s argument as to the cost of the remedial measures required in an improvement notice: BELHAVEN BREWERY COMPANY LTD v A MCLEAN (HM INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES) [1975] IRLR 370

ABSTRACT

By an Improvement Notice issued on 14 June 1975 in accordance with the provisions of s 21 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, the respondent gave notice to the appellants that he was of the opinion that they were contravening s 2(1) of the said Act, and ss 13(1) and 14(1) of the Factories Act 1961. He stated that the reasons for his said opinion were that secure fencing was not provided for the transmission machinery and various dangerous parts of machinery on the respondents’ automatic kegging plant, as specified in the schedule attached to the notice; and he required them to remedy the said contraventions, or the matters occasioning them, by 11.10.75 in the manner stated in the schedule.