THE HEALTH and Safety Authority (HSA) has no power to compel local authorities to implement specific safety measures on roads where particular temporary surfacing has been left for an extended period before a final surface dressing is applied, the High Court has ruled.
In his reserved judgment yesterday on a test case, the first of 34 similar cases involving the HSA and local authorities across the state, Mr Justice John Hedigan ruled the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005] gives "no role" to the HSA in relation to the safety and health of road users.
The Act applies only where roadworks are actually taking place or are imminent, the judge said. In those circumstances, the HSA may give directions to protect the health and safety of workers and road users present at the location.
The HSA was wrong to characterise as "place of work" a road where temporary dense bitumen macadam (DBM) surfacing had been applied and left for a time, he said. He noted the HSA's concern was that DBM has less skid resistance than a final surface dressing and was being left in place for extended periods on roads used by traffic before a final dressing was applied.
Mr Justice Hedigan was giving his reserved judgment on a dispute between Cork County Council and the HSA arising from the Authority's decision in January 2007 to serve an improvement notice on the council alleging breach of Section 66 of the 2005 Act.
Cork County Council appealed against the improvement notice to Cork District Court, and several issues relating to the extent of the HSA's powers concerning local authorities were referred to the High Court. The HSA has served similar improvement notices on other local authorities and 34 cases pending are affected by yesterday's decision.
Mr Justice Hedigan was required to determine issues of law relating to whether the 2005 Act applies to local authorities and what powers, if any, the HSA has to direct a local authority on matters concerning the performance of its duties.
Mr Justice Hedigan ruled the "dominant purpose" of the HSA issuing an improvement notice under the 2005 Act was the safety of road users.
While that concern was "laudable", it was outside the scope of the 2005 Act, he said. He ruled the HSA was wrong to characterise a road where DBM has been laid and roadworks then demobilised as a "place of work". The judge said the planning and supervision of roadworks is a duty assigned to the National Roads Authority but maintenance and construction of roads remains a function of county councils.
