Legal Watch Health & Safety Issue Number: 001
Defending the Employee We have noticed in recent times perhaps a greater appetite on the part of the HSE to prosecute employees. In some cases
In This Issue:
the employees have not been that senior and are likely to be “middle managers” such as site managers of construction
- Defending the Employee
sites. Such action can have significant implications for the insurer and the employer as well as the employee.
Conflict of Interest There is an obvious and immediate conflict between the interests of the employer and employee. Careful consideration needs to be given by those acting for each in relation to the
- Health & Safety and the Proceeds of Crime Act - RIDDOR Reports - The Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013 (‘CIR’)
nature of the defence that it is intended to present. The most obvious defence for the employee is that it was the employer’s fault because the employer’s systems of work, and training were not adequate. This can have serious implications for the employee in relation to keeping his employment. There may be a need in these cases for specialist employment advice to be taken at various stages during the course of the
Events
investigation and defence. Equally, the employer needs to take careful consideration before blaming the employee as that could reflect badly on its position with the Health & Safety Executive. In addition, the employer may open itself up to an employment tribunal claim if it acts precipitously in unfairly treating the employee during the course of the investigation and defence of the proceedings. Normally of course the employer will want to conduct an internal investigation into the circumstances of any accident. Those acting for the employee need to ensure that any such investigation is stayed pending the outcome of the criminal investigation and the employee needs to be advised accordingly and swiftly.
Plexus and Greenwoods hold a series of events which are open to interested clients. See below for those being held in the next months: Pre-Action Disclosure Seminar | 12.12.13 | Peninsular House - London An Audience With ... | 21.01.14 | Central London
Duties Owed by Employer/Employees
she was so acquitted.
The duties owed by the employer/employee under the Health
Implications for Insurers
& Safety at Work Act are not the same. In fact they are
What does all this mean for insurers? Unfortunately, it has
significantly different. Pursuant to Section 2 and 3 of the
significant cost implications. It is likely that the employee will
Health & Safety at Work Act the employer owes a duty to take
be entitled to cover for his/her defence costs pursuant to the
all reasonably practicable steps to reduce a risk of injury.
employer’s insurance policy (either the employer’s liability or
Section 7 of the Health & Safety at Work Act says: “ It shall be the duty of every employee while at work— (a) to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work; and (b) as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his
public liability policy). This cover may be subject to the employer requesting it but in most cases the employer will do so because employer needs to be careful not to unreasonably deprive the employee of the entitlement to such cover. The relevant insurer will usually of course appoint legal representation from its panel for both the employer and employee.
Those respective firms need to work closely
employer or any other person by or under any of the
together but of course the firm acting for the employee needs
relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far
to be very clear that it cannot report anything to the insurer
as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be
(unless the employee agrees). The insurer may find itself
performed or complied with”. In other words the employees duty is to take reasonable care in all the circumstances. Those circumstances will include the actions of any injured party, the instructions given by the employer, the systems and polices set up by the employer and the degree to which they were or could be followed by the employee. Therefore, whilst a cursory assessment of the circumstances leading to the accident may suggest that the employee is
having to fund a full defence for the employee when the circumstances as against the employer make it clear that the employer has to plead guilty. The defence of the employee is unlikely to make any difference either to the defence of any subsequent civil claim. Therefore there is no advantage to the insurer in having to provide such defence costs in many cases. The insurer therefore needs to be advised of the cost of the defence of the employee and reserve accordingly. The cost of defending such a case to a trial can well exceed six figures.
responsible essentially for going off on a “frolic of his own”, a
Therefore insurers would do well to consider their terms of
closer examination can often reveal that in many cases the
cover provided under the EL/PL policy before agreeing to
employer will still have a responsibility, and often is obliged to
extend cover to the employees.
plead guilty, whereas the employee is able to plead not guilty because the duty he/she owes is less onerous. This was illustrated by the case of R v Beckenham in 2006. In this case
For further information please contact Philip Tracey: 0207 079 4658 – pbt@greenwoods-solicitors.com
the employer and employee were charged with breaches of Section 3 and Section 7 respectively (the employee was also charged with and aquitted of gros negligence manslaughter). The charges related to an outbreak of legionnaires disease. The employer pleaded guilty to a breach of Section 3; the employee pleaded not guilty to a breach of Section 7. The employee was convicted at first instance but was acquitted on appeal. The Court of Appeal stated that the duty owed by the employee was different and therefore required a different direction to be given to the jury, which if it had been given in this case is likely to have resulted in an acquittal and therefore
03
Health & Safety and the Proceeds of Crime Act The widely accepted purpose of the Proceeds of Crime Act
years was obtained as a result of his general criminal conduct
2002 (POCA) is to deprive “real criminals” (drug dealers,
and any property held by him at any time after the conviction
fraudsters etc) of their ill-gotten financial gains. It is now clear
was a result of general criminal conduct. The burden is on the
that POCA has a far wider application and is now being used
defendant to show these assumptions are incorrect.
by prosecutors and courts to target the financial assets of those convicted of regulatory offences, notably in the areas of planning, trading standards and environmental regulation. In future, it is also likely to play a part in health and safety prosecutions.
The Environment Agency has obtained at least 10 Confiscation Orders, particularly against those convicted of illegally disposing waste. The Orders can be substantial and far exceed fines and costs imposed, often running into hundreds of thousand of pounds. The impact of such orders can put a
The Act does not treat regulatory crime as “quasi crime” and
company’s survival at risk and leave individuals facing custody
judicial comment on POCA makes this clear. In a prosecution
if unable to pay.
involving the use of land in breach of a planning permit and failure to abide by an enforcement notice, HHJ Baker in R v Del Basso 2010 stated “Those who choose to run operations in disregard of planning enforcement requirements are at risk of having the gross receipts of their illegal businesses confiscated. This may greatly exceed their personal profits. In this respect they are in the same position of thieves, fraudsters and drug dealers.”
It is clear that where a business activity is judged to be fundamentally unsafe and the duty holder in breach of health and safety legislation, there is scope for the prosecution to seek an order under POCA, particularly where the breach is found to have existed over a considerable period of time. The Health & Safety Executive is looking closely at the application of POCA, particularly in cases where it can be argued that a breach of health & safety regulations has enabled a business
An application for a confiscation order can be made under
to continue when it would not have done so without that
POCA where a defendant is convicted/sentenced in the Crown
breach. In such circumstances, it is easy to see how the sums
Court or is subject to a criminal investigation where there is
confiscated could far exceed any fine and costs imposed.
reasonable cause to believe that he is benefiting from criminal conduct and may dissipate those assets. The court must consider making an order if requested by the prosecution or in circumstances where the court feels such an order is appropriate. The court must decide if a defendant has a “criminal lifestyle”. This is defined as an offence committed over a period of at least six months where the defendant has benefited (by more than £5000) from the criminal conduct which constitutes the offence. If the defendant does not have a criminal lifestyle, he must have benefitted from particular
There will be hard fought arguments over whether a company or individual has benefited from health and safety breaches, particularly in situations where it can be demonstrated the breach was isolated. We can expect to see POCA playing a significant role in health & safety prosecutions in the Crown Court and during criminal investigations. [This article is to appear later this month in Tomorrow's Health & Safety - http://www.tomorrowshs.com/]
criminal conduct with which he is charged.
For further details please contact Peter James: 0844 245 5319
If a defendant is found to have a criminal lifestyle, a number
– peter.james@plexuslaw.co.uk
of statutory assumptions will be made which can result in very substantial sums being confiscated. It will be assumed that any property transferred to the defendant within the last six 04
RIDDOR Reports Dangerous
loading and unloading operations, work alongside the road
Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 2013 received Royal
such as road maintenance and escape of substances from
Ascent on 1 October 2013. The new regulations follow
vehicles.
The
Reporting
of
Injuries,
Diseases
and
recommendations by Professor Lofstedt following his wide ranging review into health and safety regulation and its effects on business. They replace the 1995 regulations and are intended to simplify the process of reporting workplace injuries. The Health & Safety Executive has stated the while the principles behind the reporting of accidents are unchanged, fewer accidents will need to be reported and could save businesses £5.9 million over a 10 year period. The main changes can be summarised as follows: Classification of major injuries to workers to be replaced by
Employers, the self employed and those in control of premises have duties in certain circumstances to report accidents under RIDDOR. Enforcement authorities (HSE, local authorities and the Office of Rail Regulation) must be notified of reportable accidents and dangerous occurrences without delay and in any event within ten days of the incident. Incidents resulting in over seven day incapacitation must be reported within 15 days. The new regulations encourage reporting online. appropriate forms are found on the HSE website.
All Fatal
a shorter list of `specified injuries`, including fractures other
accidents and specified injuries can be reported by telephone
than fingers, thumbs and toes; amputation of a hand, arm,
during working hours but no other incidents can be reported
finger, thumb, leg or toe; permanent loss of sight or reduction
by telephone. There is no longer a paper form for RIDDOR
of sight; crush injuries to the head or torso leading to brain
reporting.
injury or internal organ damage; unconsciousness caused by head injury or asphyxia. The existing schedule of 47 industrial diseases to be replaced by eight categories of reportable work related illness; Fewer types of ‘dangerous occurrences’. There is no longer a requirement to report where an employee is unable to perform a normal range of duties for seven days or less. (The old regulations required a report where an employee was unable to perform duties for more than three days) There is no change to the requirement to report fatal accidents to employees and members of the public. An employer must still report injuries to members of the
It remains a criminal offence to fail to report as required under RIDDOR. Penalties for failure to report can be up to £20,000 and/or six months in prison in the Magistrates Court and an unlimited fine and/or up to two years in prison under the Crown Court. Will the new regulations make a difference? While the list of specified injuries has been simplified and there is a shorter list of work related illnesses it will still be necessary for duty holders to have a detailed knowledge of specified injuries, dangerous occurrences and other reportable incidents. Currently the HSE believe as many as 40% of reportable incidents are not reported – largely concerned with lost time or ill health. It is unlikely that the changes will encourage greater reporting. The HSE’s fee for intervention scheme
public or people who are not at work if they are injured through
allowing the regulator to charge for investigations where a
a work related accident and are taken from the scene of the
material breach is found may lead to a greater temptation not
accident to hospital for treatment for that injury. There is no
to report. It remains to be seen whether in reality the new
need to report incidents where people are taken to hospital
regulations amount to a simplification of the system and
purely as a precaution and no treatment is received.
provide any time and cost saving to industry.
The regulations contain a number of exemptions where a
For further details please contact Peter James: 0844 245 5319
report is not required. These include accidents during medical or dental treatment and accidents involving the movement of vehicles on a public road other than those associated with
– peter.james@plexuslaw.co.uk 05
The Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013 (‘CIR’) The CIR came into effect on 25 July 2013 and contains a
organisations including those closely connected with the
number of provisions to redefine how a coroner should carry
deceased; anyone whose act or omission may have caused
out investigations prior to the holding of an inquest. The senior
or contributed to the death; and enforcing authority; and the
coroner for each area now works under the overarching
police.
supervision of the newly created chief coroner. The principal
The coroner may provide any document....to any person who in the opinion of the coroner is a proper person.
purpose of the regulations is to reduce the delay between the death and an inquest, with better communication between the coroner’s office and interested parties. Regulation 14 relates to the identification and preservation of material collected during the course of a post mortem examination. The relevance of this power has been highlighted in the case of Matthews (Deceased) v Collins and others (2013) EWHC 2952 (Civ). In this case relevant samples were disposed of because the deceased’s widow did not understand their relevance to subsequent civil proceedings. The defendants were unsuccessful in an application to strike out the claim but the High Court judge suggested that the chief coroner should consider advising coroners that, in any case where the verdict involved industrial disease, the deceased's family should be advised that, if a claim in respect of the death was pending, they should consult their solicitor before authorising the disposal of tissue samples. In such cases it would be good practice for solicitors to advise both their clients and the relevant coroner's office that histological samples should not be disposed of without confirmation that they were not required for the purposes of a claim. Regulation 18 provides for the transfer of an investigation from one coroner to another, so that the investigation need no longer be carried out in the area in which the death occurred. The disclosure and provision of information by the coroner to interested parties is dealt with in particular in Regulation 27. The coroner may provide any document…. to any person who
The most relevant provisions from a defendant perspective are Regulations 28 and 29. Regulation 29 applies where, following his investigation, the coroner makes a report to prevent other deaths. This is sent to the Chief Coroner and to any other person who the coroner believes may find it useful or of interest. Under Regulation 29, a party required to respond to the coroner’s report must provide details of what action has been taken or proposed to prevent other deaths or explain why no action is proposed. This response may also be sent to a wide range of interested parties. For further information please contact Geoff Owen: 01908 298216 - gro@greenwoods-solicitors.com or For further information please contact Philip Tracey: 0207 079 4658 - pbt@greenwoods-solicitors.com
in the opinion of the coroner is a proper person to have possession of it. There is no definition of proper person. However, S47 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 defines an interested person to include a wide range of individuals and 06
Review of significant prosecutions over the last 3 months Date
Company
Breach/Circumstances
Plea
Sentence
Guilty
Fined a total of £40,000 and ordered to pay £25,000 in costs
A father-of-three was cleaning the inside of a 20,000 Guilty litre fuel tank, known as a bowser, when he was engulfed by a fireball that caused severe burns and left him almost completely paralysed.
Fined £66,000 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £25,000
October 2013 Douglas Valley Breakers A car mechanic suffered severe burns when the Ltd inspection pit he was standing in burst into flames. The company was prosecuted after a joint investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service discovered multiple health and safety failings. Company pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002, one breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and two breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Fuel Proof Ltd
Fuel Proof Ltd was prosecuted after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident at Middleton Industrial Estate in Heysham on 9 September 2011 identified serious safety failings. Company pleaded guilty to a charge under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Neath Port Talbot Recycling
An experienced worker had his right forearm pulled off by a conveyor belt as he was trying to clean it.
Guilty
Fined £90,000 and ordered to pay £50,000 in costs
A father-of-two was killed when some 15 tonnes of Guilty rock forming a section of roof collapsed as a powered roof support was being operated. His death happened just six days after a similar roof fall in the same vicinity of the mine with the same powered roof support in operation.
Fined £200,000 It was agreed that although prosecution costs were properly incurred they would not be awarded so as not to jeopardise any potential payments to the Miners’ Pensioners’ coal allowance scheme, a main creditor against UK Coal's limited financial assets
Company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Juniper (No3) Limited, the name given after UK Coal Mining Ltd went into administration
Company pleaded guilty to a breach of Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
07
Date
Company
Breach/Circumstances
Plea
Former UK Coal Mining The former UK Coal Mining company has been Guilty Ltd sentenced for safety failings that led to an underground pit explosion and the evacuation of more than 200 miners from Kellingley Colliery in North Yorkshire. Company pleaded guilty to a single breach of Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Wrexham Demolition and Dismantling Ltd
A Neath Port Talbot based demolition firm has been fined £30,000 after two of its workers were injured when a mezzanine floor collapsed on them.
Guilty
Sentence Fined £50,000 It was agreed that although prosecution costs were properly incurred they would not be awarded so as not to jeopardise any potential payments to the Miners’ Pensioners’ Coal Allowance, a main creditor with limited financial assets Fined £30,000 and ordered to pay costs of £100,074.
Pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. London Luton Airport Operations Limited (LLAOL)
Elderly passenger was killed on a poorly sited pedestrian crossing. Mary Whiting, 78, from Taverham in Norfolk, was crushed beneath the wheels of a 26 tonne milk lorry as she used a crossing between a terminal building and a passenger drop-off zone at the airport.
Fined a total of £75,000 and ordered to pay £197,595 in costs
Company found guilty of breaching Sections 3(1) and 21 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. C J Gowing and Son Ltd A family-run construction company was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an investigation found there was no control of vibration risks and no health surveillance.
Guilty
Fined £45,000 and ordered to pay a further £4,670 in costs
The company pleaded guilty to four separate breaches of the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 and single breaches of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.
08
Date
Company
Breach/Circumstances
Co-owners Mukesh Shah and Kiran Shah Company director Vijay Patel
The director of a Hertfordshire building company and the co-owners of a south London property undergoing conversion have been sentenced for safety failings after a worker was killed in a trench collapse.
Mukesh was fined £40,000 with costs of £34,750. Kiran was fined £25,000 and was also ordered to pay £34,750 in costs
The co-owners were each found guilty of two separate breaches of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. The brothers were told they would be jailed if they failed to make the necessary payments.
Vijay Patel was ordered to undertake 270 hours of community work after pleading guilty to a single CDM Regulations breach. The court ruled he had no means to pay a fine or contribute towards costs.
A & P Tees Ltd, c/o A & A ship repair and conversion company has been P Tyne Ltd ordered to pay £98,500 in fines and costs after a worker was crushed to death when an anchor weighing almost three tonnes toppled onto him in a dry dock at Teesport.
Plea
Guilty
Sentence
Fined £75,000 and ordered to pay £23,500 in costs
Company pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Dredging International (UK) Ltd
A Surrey company has been sentenced for safety Guilty failings after a contractor was crushed to death at the London Gateway Port construction site in Essex.
Fined £120,000 and ordered to pay £26,473 in costs
Company pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety At Work Act 1974. United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust,
United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust has been Guilty fined after an interventional radiologist was exposed to significant amounts of ionizing radiation.
Fined a total of £30,000 and ordered to pay costs of £15,128
Trust pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 7(1) and 11 of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999. GrowHow UK Ltd
A fertiliser manufacturer has been sentenced after around 50 workers were exposed to potentiallydeadly asbestos fibres at its plant at Ince Marshes near Ellesmere Port.
Guilty
Fined £60,000 and ordered to pay £17,094 in prosecution costs
GrowHow UK Ltd pleading guilty to one breach of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and two breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. 09
Date
Company
Breach/Circumstances
Plea
PHS Ltd
A chemical firm has been ordered to pay £150,000 in Guilty fines and costs over a major explosion at a waste management site in Lancashire that caused three workers to sustain serious burns.
Sentence Fined £105,000 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £45,000
Company pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. September 2013
Hydro Pumps Ltd
A Hampshire-based firm has been sentenced for serious safety failings following two incidents in less than a week which left two employees with lifechanging disabling injuries.
Fined £46,500
Company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 by failing to ensure the health and safety of its employees. St George South London A prominent London developer and a Middlesex sign Ltd (SGSL), an agent for company have been ordered to pay over half a million site owner St George pounds in fines and costs for safety failings after a Plc, and A E Tyler Ltd pedestrian sustained a permanent brain injury when (AETL) parts of a decaying advertising sign fell onto her head.
Nolan Recycling Ltd
St George South London Ltd, found guilty of breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 after a trial in June 2013. A E Tyler Ltd, pleaded guilty to a Section 3(1) breach when the matter first came before the court in November 2011. A Bridgend recycling firm has been ordered to pay Guilty £250,000 in fines and £53,100 in costs after a 21 year-old worker was crushed to death when he was struck by a skip lorry on a weighbridge he was cleaning.
St George South London Ltd was fined £300,000 and ordered to pay £222,692 in costs A E Tyler Ltd fined £60,000 with £22,855 costs
Fined a total of £250,000 and ordered to pay £53,100 in costs
Company pleaded guilty to a breach of Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Aesica Pharmaceuticals A North East pharmaceutical company has been fined Guilty Ltd for a serious safety breach which left a worker fighting for his life in hospital.
Fined £100,000 and ordered to pay £7,803
Company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
10
Date
Company
Breach/Circumstances
Plea
Sentence
Guilty
Fined £50,000 and ordered to pay £6,562 in costs
Guilty
Fined £60,000 and ordered to pay a further £20,000 in costs
A Southport firm has been ordered to pay more than Guilty £100,000 in fines and costs following the death of a teenager who came off his motorbike when it collided with a metal cable strung between two trees.
Fined £50,000 and ordered to pay £50,209 in prosecution costs
Pyranha Mouldings Ltd A Runcorn-based boat manufacturer has been fined after an employee’s head was crushed against the top of a lorry container.
Poole Investments plc
Company pleaded guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. A company in Poole has been fined for safety breaches after exposing workers to potentially fatal asbestos at a disused tile factory in the town. Company pleaded guilty to three breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.
JA Jones & Sons (Churchtown) Ltd
Moores Turf & Top Soil Limited
JA Jones & Sons, which runs a tree farm on the estate, pleaded guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. A Kent aggregate company has been ordered to pay Guilty more than £180,000 in fines and costs after a worker was killed by dangerous lifting equipment on a tipper lorry.
Fined a total of £85,000 and ordered to pay a further £97,791 in costs
Company pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Chestnut Homes Ltd Mr Peter Tute, Site Manager
A Lincolnshire house building company has been fined and a site manager sentenced to community service after a self-employed bricklayer fell to his death from dangerous scaffolding. Company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Chestnut Homes Ltd fined £40,000 Mr Peter Tute, Site Manager, was ordered to carry out 240 hours community service
Mr Peter Tute, Site Manager, was ordered to carry out 240 hours community service after pleading guilty to breaching Section 7(a) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
11
Date
Company
Breach/Circumstances
Universal Builders Supply Limited
An east London firm has been fined £125,000 after being found guilty of safety failings that led to the death of a worker who was crushed by a falling metal mast at its site in Cambridgeshire.
Plea
Sentence Fined a total of £125,000 and ordered to pay £40,000 costs
Company found guilty at an earlier hearing of three offences of breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Regulation 8(1) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 and Regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
August 2013
Mother Redcaps Care Home Ltd
Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Guilty Foundation Trust has been ordered to pay a total of £350,000 in fines and costs for serious safety failings relating to two separate matters. The first concerns at least seven patients being infected with legionella, the bacteria that causes Legionnaires’ Disease, from the hospital’s water system. The second incident involved a vulnerable 80 year-old patient falling almost five metres from an inadequately restricted window in June 2012. She suffered a broken back and ankle. Trust admitting breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 for the period between 28 February 2004 and 31 December 2010 in relation to the legionella cases. A private care home in Wallasey has been ordered to Guilty pay £40,000 in fines and costs after it failed to manage the risk of elderly residents catching a potentially fatal form of pneumonia.
Fined £100,000 with costs of £162,000
Fined £6,525 and ordered to pay £33,475 in costs
Company pleaded guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Ecobuild Homes Ltd
An Ashford-based building company has been prosecuted for repeatedly failing to manage risks on a construction site and exposing workers to needless risk of injury. Company was found guilty in their absence to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 by failing to comply with an Improvement Notice and guilty to a breach of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.
Magistrates fined the company, which had failed to appear at court for the second time, a total of £40,000 and ordered them to pay costs of £10,035
12
Date
Company
Breach/Circumstances
Ecobuild Homes Ltd Rolls Royce Plc
British engineering company Rolls Royce has been sentenced after an employee was diagnosed with a debilitating condition that has left him with permanent nerve damage.
Plea
Sentence Fined a total of £60,000 and ordered to pay £18,168 in costs
Company pleaded guilty to a breach of the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005, and a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Eagle Freight Terminal Ltd
A Suffolk-based freight company has been sentenced Guilty for a series of safety breaches after a forklift truck toppled and spilled its load onto a worker, breaking his back.
Fined a total of £50,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4,501.23 plus £120 victim surcharge
Company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Regulation 9(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Regulation 17(1) of the Workplace [Health, Safety and Welfare] Regulations 1992 and for failing to comply with two Improvement Notices. General Motors
The owner of Vauxhall has been fined £150,000 over Guilty the death of a long-serving worker who was crushed in machinery at its car factory in Ellesmere Port.
Fined £150,000 and ordered to pay £19,654 in prosecution costs
Company pleaded guilty to single breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 by failing to ensure the safety of employees, and failing to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. Nature’s Power Ltd
A Hertfordshire firm has been prosecuted for safety breaches after a trainee employee suffered multiple fractures in an eight-metre fall from a roof.
Fined a total of £30,000 and ordered to pay a further £5,840
Company was found guilty in absentia of two separate breaches of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.
13
An Audience With Our “An audience with......” series restarts on the 21 January 2014 at 6.00pm (central London) with Caroline Mitchell, of the Insurance Ombudsman Service. There are just a few places remaining, on a first come, first served basis, so if you have
Other Publications If you would like to recieve any of the below, please email indicating which you would like to receive.
not already booked a place and wish to attend please contact crm@greenwoods-solicitors.com
Weekly: • Legal Watch: Personal Injury Monthly: • Legal Watch: PICG Bi Monthly: • Legal Watch: Employment Writes Quarterly: • Legal Watch: Counter Fraud • Legal Watch: What’s on the Horizon? • Legal Watch: Marine • Legal Watch: Professional Indemnity • Legal Watch: Disease
Contact Us For more information please contact: Peter James, Partner T: 0844 245 5319 E: peter.james@plexuslaw.co.uk Philip Tracey, Partner T: 0207 079 4658 E: pbt@greenwoods-solicitors.com
www.greenwoods-solicitors.co.uk
www.plexuslaw.co.uk
The information and opinions contained in this document are not intended to be a comprehensive study, nor to provide legal advice, and should not be relied on or treated as a substitute for specific advice concerning individual situations. This document speaks as of its date and does not reflect any changes in law or practice after that date. Plexus Law and Greenwoods Solicitors are trading names of Parabis Law LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership incorporated in England & Wales. Reg No: OC315763. Registered office: 8 Bedford Park, Croydon, Surrey CR0 2AP. Parabis Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the SRA.