The regs themselves expressly exclude their application to the provision of instruction or leadership to one or more persons in connection with their engagement in caving or climbing by way of sport, recreation, team building or similar activities (see Reg 3(4)(d.
My reading of those regs suggests that even though the statutory duties imposed by the regs may not apply to the provision of instruction etc, the nature of many of the duties is the same as that which a reasonable instructor/leader/trainer would have to comply with. ie, to ensure activities are properly planned and supervised, carried out in a manner which so far as is reasonably practicable safe, to ensure that trainers etc are competent or if being trained superviised by a competent person, properly risk assessed, that proper equipment is selected. Simply because the regs themselves do not apply to the provision of training in sporting activities etc does not mean that a trainer engaged in those tasks who fails reasonably to comply with essentially the same duties of care could avoid a claim against them for negligence. In other words, for example, a trainer who fails to select proper equipment for an abseiling exercise or to risk assess that exercise when it would be reasonably practicable to do so and someone is injured as a consequence of that failure, could not be sued for a breach of the Working at Height Regs, but could be in common law negligence. Let's be careful out there!
