The rules define a client as a person for whom the construction work is performed. For a client who does not work in the construction industry or who does not have the expertise and experience to complete a construction project, meeting these obligations may be impractical. Moreover, it is apparent from the wording of the rules that those obligations cannot be `delegated` to a `principal contractor` or to a appointed `contractor`. Sub-regulations 5 (6) and (7) of the regulations provide for the written designation of a competent person acting as an agent on behalf of the client. However, clients would be advised to consider whether a written date and the terms of an underlying mandate agreement are sufficient to protect themselves from possible liability that may result from an infringement within the meaning of OHASSA. Failure to enter into a contract with an agent within the meaning of Article 37(2) of OHASA may lead to potential liability. Ensuring a clear and clear agreement in place in this regard provides a higher level of security and a means for the parties to settle their relationship for the duration of the construction project. With the advent of the 2014 building rules (the mandatory “rules” within the meaning of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1993 (OHASA), the “customer” is now subject to additional obligations that did not exist under the previous regulatory system. Thus, the contracting authority now assumes the obligation to establish a basic risk assessment for a construction project and to apply for a building permit according to objective circumstances.

As a general rule, an employer may avoid liability if it can prove that the worker acted without authorization and outside the scope of jurisdiction and that the employer took all appropriate measures to prevent the conduct in question. In accordance with Article 37(2) OHASA, this Section also applies to a “client” of an employer or user (“Delegate” is defined as “Delegate” in Section 1 of OHASA). However, Article 37(2) of OHASSA provides that an employer may avoid liability for the conduct of an agent by concluding a written agreement on the arrangements and procedures for compliance with the provisions of OHASA. An agreement with the agent should cover, inter alia, the following: in view of the potential liability that the client may assume in relation to the conduct of his agent, it would be desirable for a similar agreement to be concluded to regulate the relationship between the client and the agent. In cases where the client may not have the necessary expertise and experience for a construction project, such an agreement would be indispensable to protect the client`s interests. In the construction sector, there is a practice in which an agreement within the meaning of Article 37(2) of OHASA is concluded between the so-called `employer` and a `contractor` (who would also be an `employer` within the meaning of OHASA) when the contractor`s workers work at a workplace. By such an agreement, the contractor, as the employer`s “delegate”, accepts that he is responsible for ohasa`s obligations and obligations and the rules binding therein, insofar as those obligations and obligations relate to the work to be performed at the workplace. The employer may therefore avoid liability if it has agreed in writing agreements and procedures with the contractor to ensure that the contractor complies with the provisions of OHASA. As regards criminal liability resulting from the conduct of the staff member, Article 37(1) of OHASA provides for the possible liability of the contracting authority by the legal principle of `liability of an auxiliary of execution`.. .

. .