Prof Arnold Dix

Prof Arnold Dix
Subsurface Specialist
Barrister, Lawyer, Consultant DLA Piper London
Dusseldorf Court – Trainee
Judge program
Chairman Contractual Practices ITA Member
PIARC, Committee member NFPA !30 and 502
Former Professor of Engineering QUT, Associate
Professor Human behaviour (extreme events)
Medical School University of West Sydney
Special Investigator (Coroner)– Burnley Tunnel
Incident

Convergence of Legal
and Technical thinking

If engineering based
decision is questioned - by a
court –
Court considers
“reasonableness” of decision

60 years ago

1949
"Reasonably practicable” is a narrower
term than ‘Physically possible’ and implies that a
computation must be made... in which the
quantum of risk is placed in one scale and the
sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for
averting the risk (whether in time, trouble or
money) is placed in the other and that, if it be
shown that there is a great disproportion
between them – the risk being insignificant in
relation to the sacrifice – the person upon whom
the obligation is imposed discharges the onus
which is upon him."

a computation must be
made... in which the quantum
of risk is placed in one scale
and the sacrifice involved in
the measures necessary for
averting the risk (whether in
time, trouble or money) is
placed in the other

and that, if it be shown that
there is a great disproportion
between them [the sacrifice
and the benefit] – the risk
being insignificant in relation
to the sacrifice

– the person upon whom the
obligation is imposed
discharges the onus which is
upon him."

An EU Directive gives
employers an absolute duty
"to ensure the safety and
health of workers in every
aspect related to the work",
whereas
A UK Act qualifies the duty
"So Far As is Reasonably
Practicable".

The European Commission
claimed that the “reasonably
practical” wording in the Uks
Health & Safety at Work Act
did not implement the
requirements of the
Framework Directive.

A 2-year legal battle in the
European Court of Justice
resulted in the “reasonable”
principle being upheld on 18
January 2007.

The court dismissed the
action and ordered the
Commission to pay the UK's
costs. [2][3]

Even “absolute” directions
– eg “the tunnel MUST be
safe”
will – in Europe – have the
“reasonably practical”
concept imputed into the
requirement. (but interpreted
in accordance with local
culture)