The Health & Safety Executive has powers to prosecute companies and directors, in their personal capacity, for breaches of health and safety law. This can result in very substantial fines and potentially custodial sentences for directors.
Many companies regard health and safety as a nuisance and do not take sufficient steps to ensure they comply with the law. The phrase ‘Health and Safety gone mad’ is often cited. However, what are often overlooked are the consequences of breaching the law, which can involve drastic fines for the company and / or the directors concerned. In addition, in some circumstances directors can also face a prison sentence. It is therefore madness if businesses do not pay sufficient regard to health and safety law and take steps required to avoid potential pitfalls.
Below is some general guidance as to consequences that can arise from investigations and prosecutions by the Health & Safety Executive:
Is Insolvency the answer when your company is faced with a Health & Safety Executive prosecution?
No, it isn’t. Entering an insolvency process (eg. liquidation) when your company is facing a Health & Safety Executive prosecution will, in most cases, result in the Health & Safety Executive bringing related prosecutions against directors personally, especially if the underlying reason for entering the insolvency process is considered an attempt to otherwise evade either (i) the Health & Safety Executive prosecution itself or (ii) having to pay the substantial fine which often results from it. So, instead of corporate insolvency bringing the Health & Safety Executive prosecution to an end, it is likely to have the effect of transferring the Health & Safety Executive’s attention away from the company but on to the directors in their personal capacity.
What can happen if the Health & Safety Executive prosecutes a director personally?
If the Health and Safety Executive prosecute a director in their personal capacity it means that a criminal prosecution is brought through the criminal justice system. However, since a number of breaches of Health & Safety law are “strict liability” offences, the Health & Safety Executive often do not have too much difficulty in establishing criminal liability on the part of the director. The outcome of the criminal prosecution is often therefore (i) a criminal record for the director (ii) a substantial fine payable by the director and / or (iii) the director potentially being sent to prison.
Is the level of fine that the Director pays limited to the amount that the Company would have paid?
No, it isn’t. The Health & Safety Executive prosecution against the Director personally may be considerably greater than the level of fine that a Company may be liable for in a Health & Safety Executive prosecution?
If no one is hurt or killed at work, there won’t be a Health & Safety Executive prosecution will there?
The Health & Safety Executive will prosecute Companies and / or Directors irrespective of whether an injury or death occurs at work. Clearly, the level of penalty sought in the Health & Safety Executive prosecution is likely to be influenced by whether someone has suffered injury or death as the result of a potential breach of Health & Safety law. However, a Health & Safety Executive prosecution (and conviction) can result even if nobody is injured or killed at work if the Health & Safety Executive gets wind that something is amiss, and even in that scenario fines can still be eye wateringly huge.
What should you do if you or your company is the subject of a Health & Safety Executive investigation or prosecution?
It is critical that you obtain independent legal advice in relation to the matter as soon as possible, even if the Health & Safety Executive’s investigation is only at an early stage. Missed opportunities at this point cannot be put right at a later stage.
Even if it is not possible for a company to deny liability due to the specific background of the case, it may be possible to minimise the damage done to the company (or to the directors) when it comes to sentencing, but expertise is required to optimise the chances of doing so.
What can you do to avoid you or your company being the subject of a Health & Safety Executive investigation or prosecution in the first place?
Regular training from a Health & Safety Executive approved training establishment is essential to ensure that you keep abreast of, amongst other things, what risk assessments need to be carried out in any given scenario (and how to document these properly) and to have a clear understanding of what your obligations are under Health & Safety law in any given situation and what other parties obligations are (your client’s obligations / your sub-contractors obligations).
IF YOU OR YOUR COMPANY REQUIRE LEGAL ADVICE CONCERNING A HEALTH & SAFETY EXECUTIVE INVESTIGATION OR PROSECUTION, CALL VERISONA LAW NOW AND SPEAK TO OUR COMMERCIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION TEAM.
Senior Associate Solicitor
19 April 2017
DDI: 023 9231 2085
IMPORTANT NOTE: This article is intended to be for general guidance purposes only and should not be considered or relied upon as legal advice. Cases invariably must be considered on their own facts and laws are always subject to change. If you need assistance on issues raised in the article above then please contact Verisona Law for specific advice.
- Breach of contract
- Trade disputes
- On-line traders
- Supply of defective goods/services
- Claims under personal guarantees
- Debt & asset recovery
- Ownership disputes
- Development disputes
- Option agreements
- Boundary disputes
- Adverse possession
- Rights of way
- Enforcing securities
- Restrictions & encumbrances
- Land Registry applications
- Property/estate management
- Service charges
- Payment/certification disputes
- Building defects
- Sub-contractor disputes
- JCT, NEC, RIBA & similar design/build agreements
Landlord & Tenant disputes
- Rent arrears
- Guarantor’s liability
- Recovering possession
- Protected lease renewals
- Breach of covenant
- Disrepair claims
- Unlawful assignment/sub-letting
- Break clauses
- Rent reviews
- Administrators & receivers
- Recovery of recruitment fees
- Disputed cause of introduction
- Candidate suitability
- Dual introducers
- Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003
- Ownership and transfers of equity
- Unfair prejudice claims
- Derivative actions
- Partnership dissolution & winding up
- Bank mis-selling
- SWAPS/LIBOR claims
Protection of Intellectual Property rights
- Domain name disputes/cyber squatting
- Passing off
- Breach of confidentiality
- Copyright and trademark infringement
“Many thanks for your valuable advice and expertise in this matter, I will certainly recommend your services to contacts of mine that might need legal advice”.
Independent bank customers
Making a claim for negligent advice
The client asked us to consider and advise on the conduct of their former solicitors during both of the cases. We careful analysed many files and documents, including the former solicitors’ files, and concluded that the client had a claim.
We pursued the solicitors for negligent advice and handling of the cases, with a view to recovering our client’s losses. This involved extensive dealings with the firm, through their professional indemnity insurers and city lawyers.
They refused to pay the claim, despite being provided with considerable supporting evidence and legal argument during various attempts to negotiate and settle the dispute.
Pursuing the professional negligence case in the High Court
We started High Court proceedings, which the former solicitors defended by denying the allegations and raising a number of technical legal points.
Ultimately we exerted sufficient pressure in the litigation to force a settlement before the case reached trial, resulting in our client recovering a six-figure sum. This represented the vast majority of all legal costs they had paid, as well as Verisona Law’s legal fees.
Individual Property Owner
Defending against the receiver’s claim for payment
The receiver vigorously pursued our client for payment, denying that any assurances were made or that the goods were defective.
Despite the threat of legal proceedings our client resisted the claim for payment and instructed us to counterclaim damages on the grounds of misrepresentation, breach of contract and implied terms under the Sale of Goods Act.
We gathered detailed evidence and submitted our analysis to the receiver’s solicitors. This led to a fierce exchange of letters, involving complex argument as to the legal effect of the supplier’s receivership on the claim.
A positive commercial outcome
Ultimately we persuaded the liquidator to drop the claim. Our client was allowed to retain the goods and sold them on as an end-of-line product at a small profit.
“Verisona Law dealt with a complicated dispute with a former manufacturing supplier forced into administrative receivership. Their clear, calm advice never wavered: their tenacity and diligence provided our company with a successful result”.
Managing Director of Textile Wholesaler
Successful Wholesale Textile Company