Search

BLOG

Health and Safety Roundup –July 2018

Blog image

June and July have seen several companies hit with large fines for health and safety breaches and a report stating fines for health and safety breaches have risen to an all-time high.

Corporate Fines For Health and Safety Breaches Rise To £57.3 Million

Thompson Reuters has revealed that corporate fines for health and safety breaches have increased by 18% over the past year to £57.3 million in 2017, from £48.5 million in 2016.

The sum of an average health and safety fine rose 34%, from £232,451 in 2016 to £311,343 twelve months later.

This trend confirms the upward drift of health and safety fines predicted by experts following the passing of the Sentencing Council's Definitive Guideline for Health and Safety Offences, Corporate. Manslaughter and Food Safety.[PM1] 


Welsh dairy processor fined £200K

A worker at a Welsh dairy plant suffered from burns to 27% of his body when a pneumatic valve opened and covered him with hot steam and caustic.  The employee was modifying pipework at the Wrexham plant at the time.

The company pleaded guilty to breaching section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and were fined £200,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4,267.20.

The HSE investigation found the company had been relying on informal risk control processes and procedures, which were no longer adequate for the present size of the business. 

It is imperative that organisations continually review and update their health and safety systems, so they are suitable for each stage of the company as it expands.

Preston eatery fined £15,000 for health and safety breaches

New Element 2016 Ltd which runs the New Element Restaurant in Preston was fined £15,000 after an inspection revealed the company had no written health and safety policy or risk assessment, and it was found a meat grinding machine did not have a guard.

In addition, there were concerns regarding electrical safety, dirt, and slip and trip hazards.

District Judge Gerald Chalk said: "There is no evidence that anyone suffered injury from the offences, nevertheless the potential for injury was very high".  He stated the organisation did not appreciate the need to have a safety regime at all and the other two offences were "clear and obvious risks", meaning the company’s culpability is very high.

Section 2 (3) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act reads:

“….it shall be the duty of every employer to prepare and as often as may be appropriate revise a written statement of his general policy with respect to the health and safety at work of his employees and the organisation and arrangements for the time being in force for carrying out that policy, and to bring the statement and any revision of it to the notice of all of his employees”.

This case illustrates that although it may be challenging for owner/operators of SMEs to prepare and regularly revise risk assessments and a written health and safety statement, failure to do so can result in crippling fines.


Construction giant Kier, fined £200,000

An employee for a subcontractor hired by Kier Group to repair a roof at a primary school suffered life-changing injuries after he fell whilst working.

An HSE investigation found the roof accessed by the injured worker used a ladder which was not secured, was missing its rubber feet and stability bar, and was not long enough.  In addition, it was found the company had not vetted subcontractors effectively and did not correctly implement its own work-at-height policies and procedures.

Construction News reported that HSE inspector Charles Linfoot said:

 “Falls from height remain one of the most common causes of serious injury and death in the UK.

“All work at height, including that of subcontractors, should be properly planned, organised and monitored to ensure that it is undertaken by workers who are sufficiently trained and supervised using appropriate equipment”.

The company was fined £200,000.  After pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

The company has since made changes to rectify the failings, stating:

“Operating a safe and sustainable business is Kier’s number one priority and we pride ourselves on having developed an industry-leading reputation for our rigorous approach to managing safety issues.

“On this occasion our usual high standards were not met and we will continue to ensure we focus on making improvements and introducing innovative solutions to health and safety challenges”.

 Fisher Scoggins Waters is a London based law firm with expertise in construction, manufacturing, and engineering law.  If you have any questions about health and safety matters or require an emergency response to an incident, please phone Michael Appleby on 0207 993 8264.

 


 [PM1]http://www.fisherscogginswaters.co.uk/blog/article/262/impact-on-hs-cases-of-the-new-sentencing-guideline-on-guilty-pleas

Follow our company page on linkedin for future updates and our views on the latest developments

Categories: Health & Safety

Please leave a comment

Enter the name you would like to appear on the comment.
(required)
Enter the email you would like to use to get updates. You email is not visible and can not be used by other users.
(required)
Enter you comment help.

CAPTCHA image
Enter the code shown above in the box below.
 
  Post Comment

Event Registration

First name
Surname
Email address
Any additional information
Post/Event URL
Post/Event Title
CAPTCHA image
Enter the code shown above in the box below.

Tag Cloud

‘fit for purpose’ obligations 2016 Adjudication adjudication lawyer Adjudication Notice Adjudication process appeal appointing an adjudicator Arbitration Artificial Intelligence Asbestos benefits of off-site construction bonfires breach of contract Brexit Building Defects business interruption Business Interruption Insurance CDM CDM Regulations chambers and partners Charlotte Waters civil proceedings claim payments Claims client COMAH commercial contracts complex construction claims Compliance compulsory sprinklers in warehouses consequential loss construction Construction Construction & Engineering construction contract Construction contract dispute Construction contracts Construction dispute construction dispute lawyer construction dispute resolution construction dispute resolution solicitor construction dispute solicitors Construction Disputes Resolution Construction industry Construction Magazine contracts Contribution claim Corporate Manslaughter Corporate Responsibility costs criminal investigation criminal proceedings cut out fuse Defective Building Work Defective Premises Act developer developers disadvantages of off-site construction Disaster disaster claim Disasters Dispute dispute resolution Disputes Dr Louise Smail Emergency response Emergency Response Solicitors enforcement notices Engineering Engineering dispute Environment Agency environment law Environmental Environmental Agency Environmental damage Environmental Law environmental waste EU EU Procurement Europe Evidence Expert evidence expert witness falls from height Fatal Accidents fee for intervention Fees For Intervention FFI FIDIC Contracts fine Fines Fire Fire Claim fire claims fire damage fire damage lawyers fire sprinkler systems fireworks flood flood claim flood damage food hygiene Fracking fracking claims Fraudulent claims FSW Gross Negligence Manslaughter Guide to Adjudication H&S fine increases; health and safety fines; Health & Safety health & safety breach health & safety sentences health & safety sentencing guidelines health & safety sentencing large corporations health and safety health and safety Health and Safety Executive heave Higher Fines Honey Rose v R How to appoint an adjudicator HSE Insolvency insolvent insurance Insurance Act 2015 insurance bill Insurance Broker insurance claim insurance cover Insurance Disclosure Insurance Disclosure insurance dispute insurance dispute solicitors Insurance Warranties ISO 45001 join us joint venture Judicial Review latest news Law Lawyer legal 500 legal advice privilege Legal Expense Insurance legal professional privilege legal retainers Liability Liquidated Damages Litigation litigation privilege local bodies magistrates’ courts Major Property Damage Manufacturing Martinisation material breach Mediation Michael Appleby Micheal appleby modern methods of construction (MMC) modular construction Mr. Gutaj Notice of adjudication panel firms party wall Performance Bond planning powers of an adjudicator pre-fabrication procurement procurement injunction procurement model Property Damage property danage Public Contract Public Contracts Public Contracts Regulations public procurement public procurement challenges public procurement relationship public sector Publicity Order PUWER recruitment regulation 11 Relief Resolution riot Riot Compensation Act 2016 Risk Risk Assessment safety in the workplace Sanctions Self-build sentence sentencing sentencing guidelines Serious Fraud Office SME Sneller Sony specialist risk and safety consultant Statute Barred Sub-Contractors subrogation subsidance subsidence TCC TCC Guidance team Technology and Construction Court The Adjudicator’s Decision and Costs The Enterprise Act The Lord Young Reforms The Powers Of An Adjudicator The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 The referral notice and response Training tree root UK Underwriters Warehouse insurance Warranties waste water damage WEEE What is Adjudication? what should an adjudication refal notice contain work equipment

Search The Site

Accreditations

 

The Legal 500 - The Clients Guide to Law Firms

Contact Us Now For Advice And Guidance

Enter your name
Enter your surname
Enter your Email
Ask us a Question?