header-logo header-logo

18 June 2010
Issue: 7422 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Compensation culture under review

The government has ordered a review of the UK’s health and safety laws, reviving the debate about the so-called “compensation culture” in the UK.
Lord Young, who served as trade and industry secretary under Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, is to lead the review. He is expected to report to the prime minister later this summer.

Lord Young said: “Health and safety regulation is essential in many industries but may well have been applied too generally and have become an unnecessary burden on firms, but also community organisations and public services.

“I hope my review will reintroduce an element of common sense and focus the regulation where it is most needed. We need a system that is proportionate and not bureaucratic.”

However, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) which has long campaigned against the “myth” of the so-called ”compensation culture”, as well as trade unions, which have fought for greater protection of workers, have expressed cynicism about the review.

APIL president, Muiris Lyons says: “No-one’s in favour of tick-box bureaucracy and over-zealous behaviour.

“Our concerns are that this review is an excuse to get rid of valuable health and safety laws that protect people. There seems to be a suggestion from Lord Young that health and safety laws are only needed in mines and heavy industry and not in shops and offices.
“The reason there are fewer accidents in shops and offices is that these laws protect people. Our concern is that he is starting from the wrong point. There hasn’t been a huge increase in claims. This may be an exercise in good old-fashioned lawyer-bashing.”
 

Issue: 7422 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll