Other

R v Nishimatsu, R v Conder Structures Ltd

Issue 44 - February 2004

Nishimatsu Construction was fined £700,000 (and ordered to pay £145,000 in costs) following an explosion on the Docklands Light Railway. The size of the fine reflected the judge's view that there was a breach of duty which put the public at risk. Conder Structures Limited was fined £100,000 plus costs of £60,000 following the death of a ground worker when structural steel columns were blown down in the wind.

PDF logoClick to download PDF

Sahib Foods Ltd (in liquidation) v Paskin Kyriakides Sands

Issue 43 - January 2004

The Court of Appeal had to apportion responsibility for a fire in a food factory which one party said was caused by the failure of the architect to provide for the installation of non-combustible panels and the other said was caused by the negligence of the workers preparing food.

PDF logoClick to download PDF

R v Bristol Magistrates Court Ex Parte Junttan Oy

Issue 40 - October 2003

The House of Lords decided that Junttan could be prosecuted under both section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work Act and for breach of the 1992 Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 (HSWA) following the death of a piling rig operator. This was important because the maximum penalty under the HSWA was a fine of £20,000, while the machinery supply regulations set a maximum fine of just £5,000.

PDF logoClick to download PDF

Re: Anglian Water Services Ltd

Issue 38 - August 2003

The Court of Appeal reduced a fine imposed upon Anglian Water from £200,000 to £60,000 following a conviction for discharging sewage effluent into a river. The Court noted that the fine should be set at a level which makes some impact on the company concerned to overcome a suggestion that it might be cheaper to pay the fine rather than undertake the work necessary to prevent the offence in the first place. But it ruled that original fine was excessive in this case compared with those imposed on other companies.

PDF logoClick to download PDF

Fytche v Wincanton Logistics plc

Issue 37 - July 2003

The Court of Appeal discussed whether or not the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 imposed obligations to supply and maintain protective equipment which relates solely to identified risks. Decision upheld by the House of Lords - see Issue 49.

PDF logoClick to download PDF

Subscribe to our newsletters

If you would like to receive a digital version of our newsletters please complete the subscription form.