Thread: 4wd to Forbes Hut - Clarence River

Originally Posted by Padox

Ain't no farm boy mate and the fact u said use to b states that u are no longer up with the times regs have changed 3 times in last 2 years

I said that "I have been both" but I didn't say I had finished either, did I now chap? Given that there appears no evidence of legal capacity in yourself, with the struggling to read and not being no farm boy, one wonders at your value to either end of this discussion. So how about you show me the money mate... by the way the word you are looking for is legislation and/or case law, not regulation.

The case law is old... Berryman .. where the court determined the following...

(1) "Place of work" involves a degree of frequency in the activity and involves something more than working in a transitory sense. Therefore farm tracks and access ways will generally not be "places of work" for visitors.

Sort of what I said twernt it.....

The "workplace" has not been redefined by changes in legislation, nor by other case law so far as I am aware. Regulation is subject to legislation so unless the law has changed, or recent case law has specified that we change the way it is applied, then the definition of workplace is still the same as in Berryman.

Perhaps a more recent commentary via Duncan Cotterill will clarify the position that you argue as being incorrect... and this even extends to commercial operators on otherwise farmer owned land. The farmer is unaffected by the activities of other businesses unless the work that the farm carries out has direct effect on the incident in question.

http://https://duncancotterill.com/p...lth-and-safety

It also reinforces that the critical issue is always going to be whether the incident happens in the "workplace" which is clearly related to whether work is occurring in it at the time, or whether the work done has material effect on the incident.

Again the act of granting access with or, does not turn the whole farm into a place of work for those intending to use it for unsupervised personal recreational access. With or without a fee paid for such access. That interpretation is consistent with the opinion that I previously outlined..

But what the heck, its only the law and not some second hand anectdote from some distant neighbour of a cousin who actually merited responsibility because they actually had done something that caused the event in the course of their normal work..... and nothing to do with an access fee at all - and you would know the difference ... right?