In a landmark and highly anticipated judgment in JCPC/2024/0021 University of the West Indies (“UWI”) v the Occupational Safety and Health Authority and Agency (OSHA), the Privy Council confirmed the applicable limitation periods under the OSH Act.
There are several types of claims that can arise under the OSH Act. The Act itself creates two types of offences. Breaches of the OSH Act and Regulations are deemed “safety and health offences.” They are subject to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court and punishable by fine. The Act also establishes several “summary offences” which are subject to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court and may be punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. Proceedings for both types of offences are at the initiative of OSHA, as the regulators established under the Act.
Additionally, apart from the safety and health offences and summary offences expressly established under the OSH Act, it is also open for individuals – for example employees injured in workplace accidents – to bring civil proceedings against employers for breach of their statutory duties under the Act.
There are also several “limitation periods” – ie, prescribed time periods for initiating legal proceedings – established under the OSH Act. Section 93 of the Act stipulates that a complaint for an offence under the OSH Act shall be made within six months of the date when its occurrence came to the knowledge of an OSHA inspector. Section 97B of the Act stipulates that all proceedings under the OSH Act shall be initiated no more than two years after “the cause of action” has arisen.
The issue of which limitation period – ie six months or two years – applies to which type of claim had come up before the Industrial Court on several occasions, notably in OSHA 001 of 2012 OSHA v Grand Bay Paper Products and OSHA 003 of 2012, OSHA v Green Dot.
The Industrial Court had consistently taken the view that the six-month limitation period applied to summary offences, and the two-year limitation period applied to safety and health offences. This meant that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to hear any legal proceedings concerning breaches of the OSH Act, once they were filed within two years of the date that the alleged breaches occurred.
The Industrial Court adopted this same position when the UWI case came before it. However, UWI appealed the Industrial Court’s decision
The Court of Appeal looked at the wording of the OSH Act. It ultimately ruled that the six-month limitation period applied to both safety and health offences and summary offences established under the OSH Act, while the two year limitation period applied to civil claims.
The complaint against UWI had been filed more than six months but less than two years after the alleged offence occurred. Since the Court of Appeal ruled that it should have been filed within six months, this meant that it had been filed too late. The substantive case against UWI was accordingly struck out.
The Court of Appeal’s decision was appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In its recently delivered judgment, the Privy Council agreed with the Court of Appeal, confirming that the six-month limitation period applied to both safety and health offences and summary offences established under the OSH Act.
The Privy Council’s ruling not only impacts UWI itself, but numerous other OSH complaints currently before the Industrial Court which had been filed more than six months but less than two years after the alleged offence(s) occurred.
In her address delivered at the special sitting of the Industrial Court for the 2026 Law Term on September 172025, President of the Industrial Court Her Honour Mrs Heather Seale indicated that approximately four hundred such complaints had been stayed pending the Privy Council’s decision.
Notwithstanding the Privy Council ruling, it should be borne in mind that under Section 93 of the Act, the six-month time period only begins to run, not from the date on which a breach occurred, but rather from the date on which the occurrence of the breach comes to the knowledge of an OSHA inspector.
Additionally, as noted above, apart from the prosecution of offences by OSHA, the Act also allows for individuals to bring civil claims. Such claims remain subject to a two-year limitation period. In its judgment, the Privy Council commented that there was nothing in the Act that prevented an OSH Inspector from bringing an individual civil claim.
It is, of course, also open to Parliament to amend the Act to change the current limitation periods.
While the Privy Council’s Judgment brings much needed certainty on this issue, it remains to be seen how stakeholders such as OSHA, the Industrial Court and Parliament will respond.
