Tel: +44 (0) 207 993 6960
Tel: +44 (0) 207 489 2035
17/03/2016
Swindon Borough Council is prosecuting Abdul Tayub, boss of Poundstretcher, for allegedly breaching s37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. His trial takes place later this year at Swindon crown court. If convicted he is most likely to receive a hefty fine, but the court could also send him to prison (for up to two years) or even disqualify him from being a director.
Poundstretcher has already pleaded guilty to a string of safety offences. The Council says these happened over a number of days at one of the Company’s 400 stores in 2014. It alleges these offences were committed with Mr Tayub’s consent or connivance or were attributable to his neglect.
Consent and connivance are often difficult to prove. Most s37 prosecutions are on the basis of neglect. For this the scope of the defendant’s duty of care (ie what his job covers) will be a crucial. In establishing a duty of care the House of Lords in Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] said there must be foreseeability (of risk), proximity and it must be fair, just and reasonable in the circumstances to impose a duty.
A director will usually have a good defence if he or she can show there were health and safety systems in place and that there was no reason for the director to believe these were not adequate or that they were not being followed.
Fisher Scoggins Waters are a London based law firm who are experts in construction, manufacturing and engineering matters. We provide tailored advice and emergency response for health and safety matters occurring in these industries. If you would like to discuss any points raised in this article, please phone us on 0207 993 6960.
Share:
Follow our company page on linkedin for future updates and our views on the latest developments
< Back to Posts
27 November 2019 | Bloomsbury, 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP
Recruitment