Subsection 6(1) of the SST Act imposes a general health and safety obligation on all members of the supply chain, to the extent possible, when utility items are used, adjusted, cleaned or maintained for use in the workplace. This obligation includes the provision of information and instructions for safe use, including any subsequent review of such information, as well as the necessary testing/audits to ensure compliance. § 6 HSW-Gesetz is applied by HSE. Most new machinery falls under the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 (and the Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2011, which added environmental aspects, but only for machinery using pesticides). Their scope extends to other products other than machinery as defined in, inter alia: safety components, interchangeable equipment, lifting accessories, chains, cables and straps, removable transmission devices and partially completed machinery, but excludes articles such as household appliances, many road vehicles (but not machinery mounted on them) and fairground equipment. Other products that fall within the definition of machinery but are not covered by these regulations are toys and medical devices, which are subject to more specific legislation (see below). Most new products fall within the scope of one or more of these product regulations. However, certain work equipment that is not driven or used for lifting – such as hand tools, shelves and ladders – does not fall within the scope of this Regulation. Instead, these products must comply with section 6 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1974, etc. Brief details are provided on the main UK product safety legislation relating to the design and construction of equipment intended primarily for use in the workplace, as well as some of the related supply regulations for similar consumer products. More detailed information about the different sets of rules can be found under the links below.
The safety of substances is subject to REACH and is therefore not covered here. In general, oral and written communication between a client and a lawyer is protected by the “legal advice privilege” in the United Kingdom. Documents prepared by or on behalf of lawyers and their clients in anticipation of litigation are protected by the “work product doctrine” (“litigation privilege” in the United Kingdom). Solicitor-client privilege is limited to communications for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice. The work product doctrine applies to material prepared prior to ongoing or anticipated litigation. In the U.S. and U.K., privileges are generally not related to communications and documents created by non-lawyers such as human resources, audit, or compliance teams. Even in the United States and the United Kingdom, privileges are generally not associated with communications and documents prepared by in-house counsel in the ordinary course of business.
The work product doctrine is broader than solicitor-client privilege. Unlike solicitor-client privilege, which only covers communication between a lawyer and the client, work product includes documents created by persons other than the lawyer himself: documents may have been created by anyone, as long as they were created with the realistic possibility of impending litigation in mind. In addition, it contains documents collected for the lawyer, such as interrogations, signed statements, other information acquired for the prosecution or defense of a case. Generally, you don`t own the intellectual property of something you created in the course of your work while you were employed by someone else.  In the context of the status assessment, solicitor-client privilege may apply to confidential communications from company employees if (i) the communications are made for the purpose of legal advice, (ii) the communications are directed by the company`s supervisors, (iii) the communications are requested for legal advice, and (iv) the subject matter falls within the employee`s business obligations. See id. Drug and Health Products Regulatory Agency In the United States, in-house or external lawyers conducting an investigation must explain to witnesses that they represent the company and not the witness (commonly referred to as the Upjohn warning based on the Supreme Court decision with that name). Although the interview is confidential and privileged, only the company can waive this privilege. As a result, U.S.
investigators cannot guarantee the confidentiality of witnesses. U.S. labor laws and collective agreements may impose additional restrictions on the confidentiality of investigations. In internal investigations in the UK, similar warnings are only good practice, not a legal necessity. — Legal advice privilegeHaving decided the case on the basis of litigation privilege, the Court of Appeal refused to determine whether the legal advice privilege also applied and considered the matter only theoretically. The Court of Appeal recognized that it was bound by the narrow definition of “client” under Three Rivers (No. 5) until the U.K. Supreme Court amended the law. In Three Rivers (No. 5), the Court held that communications between a lawyer and an employee`s employee did not fall within the scope of legal advice privilege unless that employee was authorized to seek and receive advice on behalf of the company. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal noted in the ENRC appeal that if “we had been free to depart from Three Rivers (No.
5), we would have been in favour..” He noted that, especially in the context of modernizing the economy, large multinational corporations must be able to securely request legal advice privilege, even if the underlying information is dispersed among their employees.