2.5.1 The general duties of the proprietor specified under the \u201cFactories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance\u201d are governed by the phrase \u201cso far as is reasonably practicable\u201d<\/strong>. This phrase is not defined<\/strong> in the Ordinance, but it has acquired a quite clear meaning from decided cases in courts.<\/strong><\/p>\n 2.5.2 When a proprietor is required to do something \u201cso far as is reasonably practicable\u201d, he must weigh on the one hand the risks of a particular work activity or situation, and, on the other hand, the cost<\/strong> in terms of physical difficulties<\/strong>, time<\/strong> and expenses<\/strong> which would be incurred in taking steps to avoid the risks. A requirement can only be regarded as not \u201creasonably practicable\u201d when there is a gross disproportion of cost against the risk.<\/strong> For example, if the risks to health and safety of a particular work activity are very low, and the cost of taking precautions to avoid those risks is very high, it might not be reasonably practicable to take those precautions. However, if the risks are very high, then less weight can be given to the costs of steps necessary to avoid those risks.<\/p>\n 2.5.3 Under section 18 of the \u201cFactories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance\u201d, when a person is prosecuted for failing to discharge or comply with a duty or requirement to do something so far as is reasonably practicable, it is up to the accused to prove that it was not reasonably practicable for him to do more than he had in fact done<\/strong> to discharge or comply with the duty or requirement.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n