Ethentic Ethentic Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data Ethentic Ethentic

    SUPREME COURT RULES ON HSE ENFORCEMENT NOTICES

    Post service evidence can be used to support HSE notice appeals

    The Supreme Court decision in the case of HM Inspector of Health and Safety (Appellant) v Chevron North Sea Limited (Respondent) (Scotland) [2018] UKSC 7 On appeal from [2016] CSIH 29 has now been published.

    The court found in favour of Chevron and against HSE. The effect of the judgement is that appeals against enforcement notices served by HSE Inspectors do not have to be confined to material which was, or could reasonably have been, known to the inspector at the time the notice was served.

    The court confirmed that appeals can take into account additional evidence which has become available after the notice was served. The ruling should increase the chances of success when businesses challenge HSE notices and thereby avoid any unjustified reputational damage.

    Response to court decision

    HSE accepts the judgement of the Supreme Court whilst stressing that the appeal was not about regulatory process or the way HSE inspectors enforce but rather about the test which an Employment Tribunal must apply in considering an appeal against an Enforcement Notice. A spokesperson added:

    “HSE notes the ruling clearly states that no criticism of the inspector or his actions in this case can be suggested, as inspectors often have to take decisions as a matter of urgency and without the luxury of comprehensive information.

    The judgement also noted the important role played by prohibition notices in improving public safety by encouraging employers to have good systems in place to demonstrate that there is no material risk. This ruling will not affect the way HSE inspectors carry out their regulatory duties.”

    The background and reason for the judgement are reproduced below.

    Background to the appeal

    The Respondent operates an offshore installation in the North Sea. In April 2013, the installation was inspected by Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Health and Safety. The inspectors formed the view corrosion had rendered the stairways and stagings to the helideck (a helicopter landing platform) unsafe and served a prohibition notice on the Respondent under s.22 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (the “1974 Act”).

    In May 2013, the Respondent appealed against the prohibition notice to an employment tribunal under s.24 of the 1974 Act. In July 2013, the Respondent arranged for the metalwork which had been of concern to the inspector to be removed from the installation and tested. The results of the testing showed that all the metalwork passed the British Standard strength test with the exception of a panel which had been damaged during the inspection and could not be tested reliably. There was no risk of personnel being injured by falling through it. The Respondent sought to rely upon the expert report as part of their appeal to the tribunal.

    The issue in the appeal is whether a tribunal is confined to the material which was, or could reasonably have been, known to the inspector at the time the notice was served or whether it can take into account additional evidence which has since become available.

    Reason for judgement

    On an appeal under s.24 of the 1974 Act, the tribunal is entitled to take into account all the available evidence relevant to the state of affairs at the time of the service of the prohibition notice, including information coming to light after it was served. [24]

    It is vital for inspectors to be able to take prompt and effective action to ensure compliance with the provisions of the 1974 Act. A prohibition notice is a powerful tool in the inspector’s hands. It not only allows an inspector to step in when he is of the opinion that a particular activity will involve a risk of serious personal injury, it also encourages employers to have good systems in place to improve public safety. [12] However, the service of a prohibition notice on a business has the potential to do financial and reputational harm to it. [13] ]

    The answer to the issue of what information the tribunal is entitled to take into account when forming its view of the facts at the material time is not clear from the wording of s.24 and must be considered in the light of the statutory scheme as a whole. [17]

    An appeal against an inspector’s notice is not against the inspector’s opinion but against the notice itself. The tribunal in the present case had to decide whether the stairways to the helideck were so weakened by corrosion as to give rise to a risk of serious personal injury. There is no good reason for confining the tribunal’s consideration to the material that was, or should have been, available to the inspector. The tribunal must be entitled to have regard to other evidence which assists in ascertaining what the risk in fact was. If the evidence shows that there was no risk at the material time, then the notice will be modified or cancelled as the situation requires. [18]

    It is no criticism of the inspector when new material leads to a different conclusion about risk from the one he reached. His decision is often taken as a matter of urgency and without the luxury of comprehensive information. [19] The effectiveness of a notice is in no way reduced by an appeal process which enables the realities of the situation to be examined by a tribunal with the benefit of additional information. [20] This wider interpretation of s.24 does not undermine the role of prohibition and improvement notices in encouraging employers to have robust systems in place to demonstrate easily that no risk exists and therefore avoid the disruption of a prohibition notice which remains in force during the appeal process unless suspended by the tribunal. [21]

    The appellant’s arguments, that permitting the tribunal to look beyond the material available to the inspector will create delay and cost, do not change the conclusion on the wider interpretation of s.24. The appeal must be started within 21 days and will thereafter be under the control of the tribunal. [22]

    There are potent considerations in favour of the wider interpretation of s.24. The only means by which a notice can be cancelled under the statutory scheme is an appeal. However, if the appellant’s interpretation were correct a notice could not be dislodged even if the perceived risk of injury never in fact existed. In some cases, an employer might have to carry out unnecessary works. Further, even if, upon receipt of convincing evidence there was no risk the inspector would not seek to enforce the notice, the notice would still have the capacity to damage the reputation of the employer and his ability to do business. Furthermore, it cannot be right in those circumstances that an employer should be exposed to the possibility of criminal proceedings after his appeal is concluded. [23]

    References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment.

    Latest Construction Health and Safety News

    SEVENTH LONDON CYCLIST DEATH DURING 2018

    Building products vehicle involved in death of Queens doctor

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 17th August 2018

    HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 15th AUGUST 2018

    hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices register latest version

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 15th August 2018

    MAJOR CONTRACTOR FAILED TO SUPERVISE LIFT

    Errors whilst lifting pre-cast concrete blocks fined £600,000

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th August 2018

    FIRM FINED £400,000 OVER VIBRATING TOOLS RISK

    Hand-held orbital sanders, rivet guns, grinders and drills caused harm

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th August 2018

    OVERHEAD POWER AND EARTHING OF SCAFFOLDS

    NASC combines updates advice on scaffold electrical risks

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 9th August 2018

    REVERSING VEHICLE CLAIMED LIFE OF ‘BANKSMAN’

    Workman trapped whilst assisting colleague in reversing lorry

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 7th August 2018

    TWO WORKMEN DIED IN SPRAY BOOTH EXPLOSION

    Flammable vapour ignited by ignition sources present at the scene

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 6th August 2018

    SOLAR SPECIALIST FAILED TO PLAN FOR SAFETY

    Fragile roof failed under weight of solar installation worker

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 6th August 2018

    DIRECTOR AND COMPANY FINED FOR SAFETY BREACHES

    Basic work at height risks and welfare requirements ignored

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 6th August 2018

    REFURB PROJECT REQUIRED ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT

    Property management firm fined over lack of asbestos survey

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 6th August 2018

    CLIENT FAILED MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS TEST

    Homes developer prosecuted for breaching CDM 2015 client duties

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 6th August 2018

    JAIL TERM FOR DEVELOPER AFTER BUILDING COLLAPSE

    Inexperienced workers demolished structure without Principal Contractor

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 6th August 2018

    CDM 2015 DUTYHOLDERS IGNORED HSE ADVICE

    Contractor, client and director convicted after dangerous site conditions

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 6th August 2018

    MASSIVE FINE OVER USE OF UNSAFE GAS FITTINGS

    College gas installation contractor exposed after multiple gas leaks

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 17th July 2018

    TEMP WORKS DESIGNED BY MANAGER AND UNCHECKED

    Collapse of platform highlighted failure in temporary works management

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 17th July 2018

    RAISING SAFETY STANDARDS FOR CRANE LIFTING OPS

    Major crane seminar seeks to raise standards and share best practice

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 17th July 2018

    WORKMAN SURVIVES 6m FALL THROUGH ROOFLIGHT

    Unsecured boards provided to cover nearby fragile materials

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 17th July 2018

    MAJOR FACILITIES FIRM FAILED ON FLAT ROOF SAFETY

    Site specific planning lacking and safety standards not monitored

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 17th July 2018

    HSE ALERT: UNAUTHORISED ACCESS TO SCAFFOLDS

    hselogo1Regulator sets out new guidance to protect children and the public

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 17th July 2018

    ASSUMING OTHERS WILL ACT IS NO DEFENCE

    Incomplete edge protection caused 8m fall from roof

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 17th July 2018

    LEADING ROOFING SPECIALIST FOUND WANTING

    Risk to employees and the public after failure to meet required standard

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 17th July 2018

    SCAFFOLDER DEVELOPMENT EMBRACED BY INDUSTRY

    CPD training attracts over 2500 scaffolders during first year of operation

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th July 2018

    SECURITY PANELS FELL DESPITE EARLY WARNING

    Firm fined £1/4 million after worker crushed by falling fencing

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th July 2018

    VEHICLE STRIKE TRIGGERED FALL OF ROOF TRUSSES

    Manufacturer failed to identify a suitable safe system of work

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th July 2018

    INCIDENT: CHILD STRUCK BY FALLING OBJECT

    Wood falling from scaffold triggers arrest of two on construction site

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th July 2018
    Ethentic Ethentic Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data Ethentic Ethentic