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

    HSE TARGETS HEALTH ON LONDON PROJECTS

    Regulator starts inspection ‘blitz’ on construction sites

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 23rd January 2019

    HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 21st JAN 2019

    hselogo1HSE online register of prosecutions and enforcement notices

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 22nd January 2019

    WORKMAN FELL FROM UNSECURED LADDER

    Industrial cladding company failed to assess and control WAH

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th January 2019

    SCAFFOLDER FELL THROUGH FRAGILE ROOFLIGHT

    Fall through roof leaves workman with life-changing injuries

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th January 2019

    ARM DRAGGED INTO CONVEYOR BELT DANGER

    Workman seriously injured on first day at work in quarry

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 16th January 2019

    ROOF TRUSSES TOPPLED TRAPPING WORKMAN

    Principal contractor failed to plan, manage and monitor project

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 16th January 2019

    SCAFFOLDING AWARENESS TRAINING FOR ALL

    CISRS set to target painters, bricklayers, electricians and plumbers

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 16th January 2019

    POOR LIFT MAINTENANCE CLAIMED LIFE OF CHILD

    Affordable housing business and contractor fined over £1.5m

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 15th January 2019

    NEW CPA CRANE SAFETY GUIDANCE ISSUED

    Guide covers use of mobile lifting appliances beside railways

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 14th January 2019

    RIBA CONDEMNS RISKIER PROCUREMENT OUTCOMES

    Holistic focus on safety is required and not just cost cutting

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 8th January 2019

    DIRECTOR JAILED OVER PAINT STRIPPER ILLEGAL SALE

    Banned and restricted chemicals sold contrary to legal requirements

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th January 2019

    CLIENT FAILED TO PROCURE ASBESTOS SURVEY

    Demolition work released large quantities of asbestos fibres

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 2nd January 2019

    LIVE WORKING IGNITED CLOTHES OF ELECTRICIAN

    Spanner came into contact with live terminal causing life-changing burns

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st December 2018

    WORKMEN FELL FROM ‘BIN’ ATTACHED TO EXCAVATOR

    Premature removal of scissor lift prompted unsafe system of work

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st December 2018

    MANY SITES FAIL HSE HEALTH RISK CONTROL TEST

    HSE Construction site ‘blitz’ finds breaches at 43% of site visits

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st December 2018

    MAKESHIFT FALL ARREST SYSTEM CAUGHT ON CAMERA

    Contactors fined for using harness not attached to suitable anchor

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st December 2018

    HYDRAULIC RAM SEVERED HAND OF WORKMAN

    Major contractor failed to follow own policies and procedures

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st December 2018

    ALL WORK AREAS NOT INCLUDED IN ASBESTOS SURVEY

    Company fined after asbestos containing materials were released

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 31st December 2018

    FESTIVE GREETINGS TO ALL OUR READERS

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    POSITIVE STORY ON FRAGILE SURFACE HAZARDS

    Major roofing contractor testifies to working from below roof

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    LEISURE CENTRE USER FELL ILL AFTER SHOWER USE

    Legionella risk assessment and control measures found wanting

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    STONE CUTTING MACHINE GUARDS FAILED HSE TEST

    Precautions taken following HSE enforcement fell into disuse

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    ROOFWORK CREATED CARBON MONOXIDE RISK

    Falling rubble damaged and blocked home chimney flue

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th December 2018

    HSE SAFETY ALERT: TOWER CRANE BRAKES

    Collapse of tower crane jib in high winds prompts HSE warning

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th December 2018

    VISITING ENGINEER CRUSHED BY SCAFFOLD TUBES

    Principal contractor “signed off” contractor storage arrangements

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th December 2018
    Ethentic Ethentic Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data Ethentic Ethentic