The Defendant Company owns four care homes. The Company undertook construction work at one of its homes, consisting of a two storey extension comprising of 27 additional bedrooms. The work being undertaken fell under the provisions of the CDM Regulations and the Defendant Company acted as the client, principle contractor and planning supervisor for the works. During the course of the works two labourers were undertaking work in the roofspace above a stairwell. The men had not placed boarding to cover the gaps between the joists and as a result, one of the men fell through the plasterboard ceiling and onto a concrete staircase below. The height of the fall was measured at 3.7m. As a result of the fall the worker sustained fractures to his foot which required pinning under general anaesthetic. The Prosecution put the case on the basis that S had failed to carry out the appropriate training needs analysis for site management and had failed to undertake a suitable or sufficient risk assessment in respect of work at height.
Read or print full article>
 

A 17 year old died in a fall from scaffolding when working in a digester tank. The Defendant was one of four to be sentenced but was the largest of the Defendants in terms of financial size. The Defendant was the Principal contractor for refurbishment work in the tank and responsible for safety management of the CDM project, but had a limited degree of control as to how the employer (a specialist scaffolding contractor) went about its work because of its (ie the Defendant’s) inability to consider any work within the tank itself.
Read or print full article>
 

F was a company specialising in the planning, supply and installation of exhibition equipment. T was one of the directors of the Company. In September 2006 T was operating a forklift truck within F’s warehouse. He was moving large wooden crates which contained exhibition equipment. During the course of the work T drove the forklift with a crate on the forks which were raised to approximately 2.5-3m. The forks were not tilted towards the mast, and, as a result, whilst undertaking a reverse manoeuvre the crate fell from the forks and struck a young employee. The employee, ‘B’, sustained significant head injuries and died as a result of his injuries. Both F and T were charged with, and pleaded guilty to breaches under s2 HSWA 1974. The Prosecution criticised the fact that the forklift was being used in an unsafe manner, that workers were allowed access to the warehouse whilst potentially dangerous operations being undertaken, the lack of signage to warn pedestrians of forklift movements, the lack of high-visibility vests for ‘B’, and the failure to undertake a risk assessment or method statement identifying forklift movements as a risk.
Read or print full article>
 

This case concerned the risks arising from, and the consequences of, the use of unsuitable equipment and failings in maintenance, training, supervision and risk assessments in relation to the clearing of blockages in a dunnage conveyor system operated by the Defendant Company. The deficiencies came to light in the course of an investigation by the Prosecuting Authority following an incident when an employee fell from a ladder whilst attempting to clear a blockage in the overhead dunnage conveyor. He sustained serous head injuries as a consequence of the fall.
Read or print full article>
 

The Defendant Company was charged under s3 HSWA 1974 after an accident in October 2004 at a construction site in Knowsley. The Defendant Company, which specialises in construction and development, was the principal contractor on a site upon which a large steel framed industrial unit was being constructed.
Read or print full article>
 

In late 2003, a double garage attached to a residential property in Aylesbury was found to be suffering from subsidence. The owner made an insurance claim and it was decided that the garage would have to be demolished and rebuilt. The CDM regulations applied to the project, but were not followed; appointments of a planning supervisor and principal contractor were not made, nor was a health and safety plan developed. The Defendant’s Company secured the contract to undertake the demolition of the existing structure and began work on site. The task was to demolish the garage and remove all the rubble in preparation for the construction of the new foundations by a second company, Euro Underpinning. The contract under which Concorde was appointed, and which was prepared by the loss adjuster, specified that electrical services to the garage had to be isolated in order to facilitate the works.
Read or print full article>
 

The prosecution related to the Company’s store at Crown Wharf, Walsall. In December 2006, Fire Safety Officers from Wolverhampton Fire Safety Centre were checking retail premises when they noticed a fire door at the rear of the Company’s premises was obstructed by waste packaging and empty pallets. The Officers attended the premises and a full inspection of the premises revealed a number of breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Five summonses were issued alleging failures such as failing to ensure safety of employees by producing a suitable Fire Risk Assessment, failing to keep routes to emergency exits clear, allowing fire doors to be wedged open and allowing trip hazards to be present along fire exit routes. The Prosecution stated that the offences were aggravated by the fact that twelve months earlier a letter had been sent to the Defendant Company warning that similar breaches had been identified at the same store.
Read or print full article>
 

The Defendant is a property development company. The prosecuting authority issued a summons alleging two breaches of s179(1) TCPA 1990. The charges related to a residential property in south London. Having purchased the property, and without obtaining planning permission, the Company extended the property significantly before dividing it into three residential flats. The prosecuting authority served two enforcement notices on the Company requiring the removal of the unauthorised extensions and the reinstatement of the property into a single dwelling. The notices were served in September 2005. By March 2007, despite warning letters having been sent, there had been no compliance with the enforcement notices. The prosecuting authority therefore issued a summons.
Read or print full article>