Legal Watch - Health & Safety - Issue 1

Legal WatchHealth & SafetyIssue 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

the employees have not been that senior and are likely to be

“middle managers” such as site managers of construction

sites. Such action can have significant implications for the

insurer and the employer as well as the employee.

Conflict of InterestThere 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

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

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.

In This Issue:

- Defending the Employee

- Health & Safety and the Proceeds of Crime Act

- RIDDOR Reports

- The Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013 (‘CIR’)

Events

Plexus and Greenwoods hold a series ofevents which are open to interested clients.See below for those being held in the nextmonths:

Pre-Action Disclosure Seminar | 12.12.13 |Peninsular House - London

An Audience With ... | 21.01.14 |Central London

Duties Owed by Employer/EmployeesThe duties owed by the employer/employee under the Health

& Safety at Work Act are not the same. In fact they are

significantly different. Pursuant to Section 2 and 3 of the

Health & Safety at Work Act the employer owes a duty to take

all reasonably practicable steps to reduce a risk of injury.

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

employer or any other person by or under any of the

relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far

as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be

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

responsible essentially for going off on a “frolic of his own”, a

closer examination can often reveal that in many cases the

employer will still have a responsibility, and often is obliged to

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

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

she was so acquitted.

Implications for InsurersWhat does all this mean for insurers? Unfortunately, it has

significant cost implications. It is likely that the employee will

be entitled to cover for his/her defence costs pursuant to the

employer’s insurance policy (either the employer’s liability or

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

together but of course the firm acting for the employee needs

to be very clear that it cannot report anything to the insurer

(unless the employee agrees). The insurer may find itself

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.

Therefore insurers would do well to consider their terms of

cover provided under the EL/PL policy before agreeing to

extend cover to the employees.

For further information please contact Philip Tracey: 0207 079

4658 – [email protected]

03

04

Health & Safety and the Proceeds of Crime ActThe widely accepted purpose of the Proceeds of Crime Act

2002 (POCA) is to deprive “real criminals” (drug dealers,

fraudsters etc) of their ill-gotten financial gains. It is now clear

that POCA has a far wider application and is now being used

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 Act does not treat regulatory crime as “quasi crime” and

judicial comment on POCA makes this clear. In a prosecution

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.”

An application for a confiscation order can be made under

POCA where a defendant is convicted/sentenced in the Crown

Court or is subject to a criminal investigation where there is

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

criminal conduct with which he is charged.

If a defendant is found to have a criminal lifestyle, a number

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

years was obtained as a result of his general criminal conduct

and any property held by him at any time after the conviction

was a result of general criminal conduct. The burden is on the

defendant to show these assumptions are incorrect.

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

company’s survival at risk and leave individuals facing custody

if unable to pay.

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

to continue when it would not have done so without that

breach. In such circumstances, it is easy to see how the sums

confiscated could far exceed any fine and costs imposed.

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/]

For further details please contact Peter James: 0844 245 5319

– [email protected]

05

RIDDOR ReportsThe Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous

Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 2013 received Royal

Ascent on 1 October 2013. The new regulations follow

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

a shorter list of `specified injuries`, including fractures other

than fingers, thumbs and toes; amputation of a hand, arm,

finger, thumb, leg or toe; permanent loss of sight or reduction

of sight; crush injuries to the head or torso leading to brain

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

public or people who are not at work if they are injured through

a work related accident and are taken from the scene of the

accident to hospital for treatment for that injury. There is no

need to report incidents where people are taken to hospital

purely as a precaution and no treatment is received.

The regulations contain a number of exemptions where a

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

loading and unloading operations, work alongside the road

such as road maintenance and escape of substances from

vehicles.

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. All

appropriate forms are found on the HSE website. Fatal

accidents and specified injuries can be reported by telephone

during working hours but no other incidents can be reported

by telephone. There is no longer a paper form for RIDDOR

reporting.

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

allowing the regulator to charge for investigations where a

material breach is found may lead to a greater temptation not

to report. It remains to be seen whether in reality the new

regulations amount to a simplification of the system and

provide any time and cost saving to industry.

For further details please contact Peter James: 0844 245 5319

– [email protected]

06

The Coroners (Investigations) Regulations2013 (‘CIR’)The CIR came into effect on 25 July 2013 and contains a

number of provisions to redefine how a coroner should carry

out investigations prior to the holding of an inquest. The senior

coroner for each area now works under the overarching

supervision of the newly created chief coroner. The principal

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

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

organisations including those closely connected with the

deceased; anyone whose act or omission may have caused

or contributed to the death; and enforcing authority; and the

police.

The coroner mayprovide anydocument....to anyperson who in theopinion of the coroner isa proper person.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 - [email protected] or

For further information please contact Philip Tracey:

0207 079 4658 - [email protected]

07

Date Company Breach/Circumstances Plea Sentence

October 2013 Douglas Valley BreakersLtd

A car mechanic suffered severe burns when theinspection pit he was standing in burst into flames.

The company was prosecuted after a jointinvestigation by the Health and Safety Executive(HSE) and Lancashire Fire and Rescue Servicediscovered multiple health and safety failings.

Company pleaded guilty to two breaches of theDangerous Substances and Explosive AtmospheresRegulations 2002, one breach of the Work at HeightRegulations 2005 and two breaches of the RegulatoryReform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

Guilty Fined a total of £40,000and ordered to pay £25,000in costs

Fuel Proof Ltd A father-of-three was cleaning the inside of a 20,000litre fuel tank, known as a bowser, when he wasengulfed by a fireball that caused severe burns andleft him almost completely paralysed.

Fuel Proof Ltd was prosecuted after an investigationby the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into theincident at Middleton Industrial Estate in Heysham on9 September 2011 identified serious safety failings.

Company pleaded guilty to a charge under the Healthand Safety at Work Act 1974.

Guilty Fined £66,000 and orderedto pay prosecution costs of£25,000

Neath Port TalbotRecycling

An experienced worker had his right forearm pulledoff by a conveyor belt as he was trying to clean it.

Company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11of the Provision and Use of Work EquipmentRegulations 1998 and Section 2 (1) of the Health andSafety at Work Act 1974.

Guilty Fined £90,000 and orderedto pay £50,000 in costs

Juniper (No3) Limited,the name given after UKCoal Mining Ltd wentinto administration

A father-of-two was killed when some 15 tonnes ofrock forming a section of roof collapsed as a poweredroof support was being operated. His deathhappened just six days after a similar roof fall in thesame vicinity of the mine with the same powered roofsupport in operation.

Company pleaded guilty to a breach of Section 2(1) ofthe Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Guilty Fined £200,000It was agreed that althoughprosecution costs wereproperly incurred theywould not be awarded soas not to jeopardise anypotential payments to theMiners’ Pensioners’ coalallowance scheme, a maincreditor against UK Coal'slimited financial assets

Review of significant prosecutions over the last 3 months

08


Former UK Coal MiningLtd

The former UK Coal Mining company has beensentenced for safety failings that led to anunderground pit explosion and the evacuation ofmore than 200 miners from Kellingley Colliery in NorthYorkshire.

Company pleaded guilty to a single breach of Section2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Guilty Fined £50,000It was agreed that althoughprosecution costs wereproperly incurred theywould not be awarded soas not to jeopardise anypotential payments to theMiners’ Pensioners’ CoalAllowance, a main creditorwith limited financial assets

Wrexham Demolitionand Dismantling Ltd

A Neath Port Talbot based demolition firm has beenfined £30,000 after two of its workers were injuredwhen a mezzanine floor collapsed on them.

Pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Healthand Safety at Work Act 1974.

Guilty Fined £30,000 and orderedto pay costs of £100,074.

London Luton AirportOperations Limited(LLAOL)

Elderly passenger was killed on a poorly sitedpedestrian crossing. Mary Whiting, 78, from Taverhamin Norfolk, was crushed beneath the wheels of a 26tonne milk lorry as she used a crossing between aterminal building and a passenger drop-off zone atthe airport.

Company found guilty of breaching Sections 3(1) and21 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 andRegulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safetyat Work Regulations 1999.

Fined a total of £75,000and ordered to pay£197,595 in costs

C J Gowing and Son Ltd A family-run construction company was prosecutedby the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after aninvestigation found there was no control of vibrationrisks and no health surveillance.

The company pleaded guilty to four separatebreaches of the Control of Vibration at WorkRegulations 2005 and single breaches of the Work atHeight Regulations 2005 and the Construction(Design and Management) Regulations 2007.

Guilty Fined £45,000 and orderedto pay a further £4,670 incosts

09


Co-owners MukeshShah and Kiran ShahCompany director VijayPatel

The director of a Hertfordshire building company andthe co-owners of a south London propertyundergoing conversion have been sentenced forsafety failings after a worker was killed in a trenchcollapse.

The co-owners were each found guilty of twoseparate breaches of the Construction (Design andManagement) Regulations 2007. The brothers weretold they would be jailed if they failed to make thenecessary payments.

Mukesh was fined £40,000with costs of £34,750. Kiranwas fined £25,000 and wasalso ordered to pay£34,750 in costs

Vijay Patel was ordered toundertake 270 hours ofcommunity work afterpleading guilty to a singleCDM Regulations breach.The court ruled he had nomeans to pay a fine orcontribute towards costs.

A & P Tees Ltd, c/o A &P Tyne Ltd

A ship repair and conversion company has beenordered to pay £98,500 in fines and costs after aworker was crushed to death when an anchorweighing almost three tonnes toppled onto him in adry dock at Teesport.

Company pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing tobreaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety atWork Act 1974.


Dredging International(UK) Ltd

A Surrey company has been sentenced for safetyfailings after a contractor was crushed to death at theLondon Gateway Port construction site in Essex.

Company pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) ofthe Health and Safety At Work Act 1974.

Guilty Fined £120,000 andordered to pay £26,473 incosts

United LincolnshireHospitals NHS Trust,

United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust has beenfined after an interventional radiologist was exposedto significant amounts of ionizing radiation.

Trust pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 7(1) and11 of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999.

Guilty Fined a total of £30,000and ordered to pay costs of£15,128

GrowHow UK Ltd A fertiliser manufacturer has been sentenced afteraround 50 workers were exposed to potentially-deadly asbestos fibres at its plant at Ince Marshesnear Ellesmere Port.

GrowHow UK Ltd pleading guilty to one breach of theControl of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and twobreaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Guilty Fined £60,000 and orderedto pay £17,094 inprosecution costs

10


PHS Ltd A chemical firm has been ordered to pay £150,000 infines and costs over a major explosion at a wastemanagement site in Lancashire that caused threeworkers to sustain serious burns.

Company pleading guilty to a breach of the Healthand Safety at Work Act 1974.

Guilty Fined £105,000 andordered to pay prosecutioncosts of £45,000

September2013

Hydro Pumps Ltd A Hampshire-based firm has been sentenced forserious safety failings following two incidents in lessthan a week which left two employees with life-changing disabling injuries.

Company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 of theHealth and Safety at Work Act 1974 by failing toensure the health and safety of its employees.

Fined £46,500

St George South LondonLtd (SGSL), an agent forsite owner St GeorgePlc, and A E Tyler Ltd(AETL)

A prominent London developer and a Middlesex signcompany have been ordered to pay over half a millionpounds in fines and costs for safety failings after apedestrian sustained a permanent brain injury whenparts of a decaying advertising sign fell onto herhead.

St George South London Ltd, found guilty ofbreaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety atWork Act 1974 after a trial in June 2013.A E Tyler Ltd, pleaded guilty to a Section 3(1) breachwhen the matter first came before the court inNovember 2011.

St George South LondonLtd was fined £300,000 andordered to pay £222,692 incosts

A E Tyler Ltd fined £60,000with £22,855 costs

Nolan Recycling Ltd A Bridgend recycling firm has been ordered to pay£250,000 in fines and £53,100 in costs after a 21year-old worker was crushed to death when he wasstruck by a skip lorry on a weighbridge he wascleaning.

Company pleaded guilty to a breach of Section 2(1) ofthe Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Guilty Fined a total of £250,000and ordered to pay £53,100in costs

Aesica PharmaceuticalsLtd

A North East pharmaceutical company has been finedfor a serious safety breach which left a worker fightingfor his life in hospital.

Company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) ofthe Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Guilty Fined £100,000 andordered to pay £7,803

11


Pyranha Mouldings Ltd A Runcorn-based boat manufacturer has been finedafter an employee’s head was crushed against thetop of a lorry container.

Company pleaded guilty to a breach of the Healthand Safety at Work Act 1974.


Poole Investments plc A company in Poole has been fined for safetybreaches after exposing workers to potentially fatalasbestos at a disused tile factory in the town.

Company pleaded guilty to three breaches of theControl of Asbestos Regulations 2006.

Guilty Fined £60,000 and orderedto pay a further £20,000 incosts

JA Jones & Sons(Churchtown) Ltd

A Southport firm has been ordered to pay more than£100,000 in fines and costs following the death of ateenager who came off his motorbike when it collidedwith a metal cable strung between two trees.

JA Jones & Sons, which runs a tree farm on theestate, pleaded guilty to a breach of the Health andSafety at Work Act 1974.

Guilty Fined £50,000 and orderedto pay £50,209 inprosecution costs

Moores Turf & Top SoilLimited

A Kent aggregate company has been ordered to paymore than £180,000 in fines and costs after a workerwas killed by dangerous lifting equipment on a tipperlorry.

Company pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1)and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Guilty Fined a total of £85,000and ordered to pay afurther £97,791 in costs

Chestnut Homes Ltd Mr Peter Tute, SiteManager

A Lincolnshire house building company has beenfined and a site manager sentenced to communityservice after a self-employed bricklayer fell to hisdeath from dangerous scaffolding.

Company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) ofthe Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Mr Peter Tute, Site Manager, was ordered to carry out240 hours community service after pleading guilty tobreaching Section 7(a) of the Health and Safety atWork Act 1974.

Chestnut Homes Ltd fined£40,000 Mr Peter Tute, SiteManager, was ordered tocarry out 240 hourscommunity service

12


Universal BuildersSupply Limited

An east London firm has been fined £125,000 afterbeing found guilty of safety failings that led to thedeath of a worker who was crushed by a falling metalmast at its site in Cambridgeshire.

Company found guilty at an earlier hearing of threeoffences of breaching Section 2(1) of the Health andSafety at Work Act 1974, Regulation 8(1) of the LiftingOperations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998and Regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health andSafety at Work Regulations 1999.

Fined a total of £125,000and ordered to pay £40,000costs

Basildon and ThurrockUniversity HospitalsNHS Foundation Trust

Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHSFoundation Trust has been ordered to pay a total of£350,000 in fines and costs for serious safety failingsrelating to two separate matters. The first concerns atleast seven patients being infected with legionella, thebacteria that causes Legionnaires’ Disease, from thehospital’s water system. The second incident involveda vulnerable 80 year-old patient falling almost fivemetres from an inadequately restricted window inJune 2012. She suffered a broken back and ankle.

Trust admitting breaching Section 3(1) of the Healthand Safety at Work Act 1974 for the period between28 February 2004 and 31 December 2010 in relationto the legionella cases.

Guilty Fined £100,000 with costsof £162,000

August 2013 Mother Redcaps CareHome Ltd

A private care home in Wallasey has been ordered topay £40,000 in fines and costs after it failed tomanage the risk of elderly residents catching apotentially fatal form of pneumonia.

Company pleaded guilty to a breach of the Healthand Safety at Work Act 1974.


Ecobuild Homes Ltd An Ashford-based building company has beenprosecuted for repeatedly failing to manage risks on aconstruction site and exposing workers to needlessrisk of injury.

Company was found guilty in their absence to abreach of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 byfailing to comply with an Improvement Notice andguilty to a breach of the Construction (Design andManagement) Regulations 2007.

Magistrates fined thecompany, which had failedto appear at court for thesecond time, a total of£40,000 and ordered themto pay costs of £10,035

13


Ecobuild Homes LtdRolls Royce Plc

British engineering company Rolls Royce has beensentenced after an employee was diagnosed with adebilitating condition that has left him with permanentnerve damage.

Company pleaded guilty to a breach of the Control ofVibration at Work Regulations 2005, and a breach ofthe Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Fined a total of £60,000and ordered to pay £18,168in costs

Eagle Freight TerminalLtd

A Suffolk-based freight company has been sentencedfor a series of safety breaches after a forklift trucktoppled and spilled its load onto a worker, breakinghis back.

Company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) ofthe Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Regulation9(1) of the Provision and Use of Work EquipmentRegulations 1998, Regulation 17(1) of the Workplace[Health, Safety and Welfare] Regulations 1992 and forfailing to comply with two Improvement Notices.

Guilty Fined a total of £50,000and ordered to pay costs of£4,501.23 plus £120 victimsurcharge

General Motors The owner of Vauxhall has been fined £150,000 overthe death of a long-serving worker who was crushedin machinery at its car factory in Ellesmere Port.

Company pleaded guilty to single breaches of theHealth and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Provisionand Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 byfailing to ensure the safety of employees, and failingto prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery.

Guilty Fined £150,000 andordered to pay £19,654 inprosecution costs

Nature’s Power Ltd A Hertfordshire firm has been prosecuted for safetybreaches after a trainee employee suffered multiplefractures in an eight-metre fall from a roof.

Company was found guilty in absentia of twoseparate breaches of the Work at Height Regulations2005.

Fined a total of £30,000and ordered to pay afurther £5,840

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

not already booked a place and wish to attend please contact

[email protected]

www.plexuslaw.co.ukwww.greenwoods-solicitors.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 substitutefor 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 GreenwoodsSolicitors are trading names of Parabis Law LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership incorporated in England & Wales. Reg No: OC315763. Registered office: 8 Bedford Park, Croydon, SurreyCR0 2AP. Parabis Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the SRA.

Other PublicationsIf you would like to recieve any of the below,please email indicating which you would liketo receive.

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 UsFor more information please contact:

Peter James, PartnerT: 0844 245 5319E: [email protected]

Philip Tracey, PartnerT: 0207 079 4658E: [email protected]

An Audience With

Legal Watch - Health & Safety - Issue 1

Documents

Transcript of Legal Watch - Health & Safety - Issue 1