 |
 |
Paula
I agree fully, especially on the ‘Chill’ instruction, and I always follow a lawyers instructions.
But I do ask that Paul ensures that there will be copies of all Jiscmail correspondence available in 5 to 10 years time[possibly 20 years the way pensions
are going], so that when we are asked about the state of knowledge in our sector in 2010, there will be well documented evidence of our professional concerns and what a reasonably competent consultant/CLO would have been expected to know.
Nearly lunch time.
Henry
Henry E Lang
Environment Director
Waterman Energy Environment & Design
Versailles Court
3 Paris Garden
London
SE18ND
Tel: 0207 928 7888 ext 1020
Fax: 0207 902 0981
Mob: 07796 990667
Email:
[log in to unmask]
www.watermangroup.com
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Paula Whittell
Sent: 02 July 2010 10:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Updated HPA PAH CLIS document (version 3, dated 2010)
I have had to resend this
On 2 July 2010 10:32, Paula Whittell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Good morning,
I can see that these publications are worryingly irreconcilable. But don't be worried by the lawyers breathing closely on you.
The duty of care to be used by a professional in the exercise of their work is summed up by the judge in the Corby case and all other cases of this type as follows: -
1. The standard of care to be exercised is that of the ordinarily careful professional carrying out his/her work according to his training and experience. No more and no less.
2. This duty of care is to be judged by reference to the standards known or reasonably ascertainable and knowledge available at the time he/she is carrying out the work.
[I know that the Corby judgement looked very harsh, but even there this is how the judge described how the work had to be done. He did not abide by it, in my opinion, which is another matter entirely.]
These standards surely give the professional concerned the ability to be aware of the conflicts and to weigh them up accordingly to his/her training and experience and then to apply them as best he/she can. In other words the conflicts
themselves and your difficult position will be taken into account by any court.
Chill - it's Friday.
Paula
On 2 July 2010 09:41, Albert.prince1 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I agree with Russell as on this basis all public and Royal Parks will be no go areas. As regards the open spaces in Whitehall we will need to advise our august leaders to wear spacesuits when walking down the road. I suspect I can predict
the response.
Time to come back down to Planet Earth and reality. The legal men could also come from the other direction i.e. judgement was not used and overly conservative values used............ARGHH!! and it is Friday.
Has everyone seen the Brent report and the New Zealand study ? The fear that our regulators have in making a decision has led to a plethora of publications trying to address this issue. The EA are so stretched and are being subjected to
more cuts than other less important departments so I see any time frames that may have been in place being extended. So the chaos will continue.
regards
Albert
This message has been scanned for viruses on transmission.
Any attachments will be listed and described in the text of the message.
If this is not the case do not open any attachment until confirming validity.
--
Paula Whittell
Partner
Berrymans Lace Mawer
Kings House, 42 King Street West
Manchester, M3 2NU
DX 14302 MANCHESTER 1
Dir 0161 838 6813
mob 07930 652299
--
Paula Whittell
Partner
Berrymans Lace Mawer
Kings House, 42 King Street West
Manchester, M3 2NU
DX 14302 MANCHESTER 1
Dir 0161 838 6813
mob 07930 652299