The purpose of the paper is to examine and contrast director duties in health and safety in the UK and Australian jurisdictions, the former influencing the latter's health and safety regime until Australia introduced a new more progressive regime.
The authors are practitioners who have combined desk based research with professional knowledge of how the law in both jurisdictions is applied. The approach was a comparative study of the underlying principles behind the enforcement regimes.
The paper found that the UK position could be strengthened but whilst the new Australian position could be a preferable development, it is too early to tell whether or not the Australian model would be more effective.
Research was desk‐based only.
Practitioners in both jurisdictions should consider potential developments in the area of director duties, particularly in the UK where Section 37 could arguably be strengthened.
This is the first comparison of the UK and Australian jurisdictions in respect of health and safety and examines an alternative to the consent, connivance and neglect model used in the UK to attach culpability to directors and officers. It also examines the possibility of introducing due diligence in the UK.
