Robert Strang Instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (London) for the Appellant
JCPC/2024/0021
Trinidad and Tobago
Occupational Safety and Health Authority and Agency
University of the West Indies
Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that s.93 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act Ch. 88:08 applied to OSHA’s complaint against UWI
On 10 March 2016, a man was hit by a cow. The man was an employee of UWI, who granted him a day’s sick leave. The attack engaged s.46A of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (the “Act”), which required that UWI give notice within four days of the occurrence to OSHA. That notice was instead dated 21 March 2016, and received by OSHA on 6 April 2016. On 20 November 2017, OSHA filed a complaint against UWI at the Industrial Court of Trinidad and Tobago. OSHA alleged that UWI was in breach of s.46A of the Act. UWI raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was out of time as, under s.93 of the Act, a complaint for an offence must be made within six months of the date on which the offence came to the knowledge of OSHA. OSHA submitted that proceedings for the prosecution of safety and health offences were subject to the time limit set by s.97B, which provided a time limit of two years after the case of action has arisen for any proceedings under the Act. The Industrial Court rejected UWI’s preliminary, finding that s.97B of the Act governed proceedings for safety and health offences brought before the Industrial Court. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision, finding that the plain meaning of s.93 of the Act encompassed the prosecution of both summary offences before a magistrate and safety and health offences before the Industrial Court. S.97B, in contrast, was reserved for civil proceedings, and did not apply to safety and health offences.
5 March 2024
16 September 2025
[2025] UKPC 42
Start date – 25 June 2025
End date – 25 June 2025
Please contact us either by telephone: +44 (0)20 7415 7800 or email: clerks@3harecourt.com
