• Company’s own procedures on meat cutting were not followed
• Training only provided in English despite multi-national workforce

A Suffolk-based meat producer has been fined £140,000 after one of its workers lost part of his finger while cutting a pig tail.

The man had been working for pork producer C & K Meats Limited at its site in Potash Lane on Mid Suffolk Business Park on 12 April 2022. The Ukrainian national, who was 31 at the time, had been instructed to remove pigs’ tails using hydraulic cutters, which were not designed for the task.

However, he caught his left index finger in the cutting mechanism and severed it. He was taken to hospital where he received further treatment including the removal of more of his finger.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the company failed to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of all its employees by providing equipment that was not suitable for the task.

Internal procedures were in place which identified hydraulic cutters were only to be used to remove pigs’ legs and that trained butchers would undertake the removal of pigs’ tails with a knife. However, the company failed to implement them.

Training provided for the process of removing pigs’ tails was also only provided in English, including for migrant workers for whom English may not have been their first language.

Employers have a legal responsibility to provide information, instruction, training and supervision in an understandable format for all workers, irrespective of their national origins, first language, or literacy. You can read more about HSE guidance for the food and drink industry here: Food and drink industry case studies – HSE.

C & K Meats Limited of Oak House Heyford Close, Aldermans Green Industrial Estate, Coventry, England, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £140,000 and ordered to pay £5,513.47 in costs at Peterborough Magistrates’ Court on Friday 20 June 2025.

HSE inspector Jessica Flint said: “This case identified multiple failures by this company while undertaking the very common task of pork processing.

“Trained butchers on site could have safely removed pigs’ tails using a knife, instead of operatives being instructed to use unsuitable hydraulic cutters.”

“The food industry should protect all its staff. This includes its more vulnerable workers,  by ensuring clearly understandable training, instruction and information is provided, including to non-English speakers, and that only the most suitable equipment is used for its processes.”

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer, Samantha Crockett and paralegal officer Melissa Wardle.

Further information:

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
2. More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
3. Further details on the latest HSE news releases is available.
4. HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences in England can be found here and those for Scotland here.

• Two workers were on first floor when collapse happened.
• “Lucky nobody was killed”, says HSE inspector.
• HSE guidance is available.

A London construction company has been fined £50,000 after four men were injured – two seriously – when the first floor of a house collapsed during building works.

Aryn Stones Ltd had been contracted to build a new domestic property in Hampstead. On 31 May 2022, remedial works were being carried out on a partially built beam-and-block floor, when it collapsed, taking two of the workers down with it.

The two men include a welder, who is now 62, and a 31-year-old bricklayer. They both sustained life-changing injuries, while two other men who were standing at ground level were injured by falling concrete.

Work on the build began in March 2021 but by February the following year, engineers who inspected the property identified errors with the connections of the structural steel beams. This prompted the remedial works that led the structure to collapse. That came about when the welder was using an oxyacetylene torch to cut a steel beam supporting the first floor. However, at the same time, another worker had been removing some Acrow props that were supporting the beam.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Aryn Stones Ltd had failed to ensure the structure did not collapse while it was in a state of temporary weakness. The company also failed to put any measures in place to manage the temporary remedial work being carried out on the steel connections. They also failed to take all practicable steps to prevent danger to any person while the building was in a temporary state of weakness.

HSE guidance on managing health and safety in construction and the management of temporary works is available.

Aryn Stones Ltd, of Percy Road, London were found guilty of breaching Regulation 19(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. The company was fined £50,000 and was ordered to pay £39,000 costs following a two-day trial before City of London Magistrates’ Court on 18 June 2025.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Lucy Ellison-Dunn said: “Although two men were seriously injured, it was lucky nobody was killed.

“This was a completely avoidable incident had a system for the management of temporary works been in place. The company should have taken precautions to protect people from the risk of collapse.

“Everyone working in construction has a responsibility to ensure that everyone on a building site is safe.”

The investigation was also carried out by HSE inspector Alexander McIlwraith.

This prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Samantha Crockett and supported by HSE Paralegal Officer Sarah Thomas.

Further information:

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
2. More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
3. Further details on the latest HSE news releases is available.
4. HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.  The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences in England and Wales can be found here and for those in Scotland here.
5. Guidance on the management of temporary works can be found here: https://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/safetytopics/temporary-works.htm

• Water rose to workers’ knees before emergency stop
• Incident was “terrifying”, says HSE inspector

An oil and gas operator has been fined £300,000 after three crew members descended into a water filled lift shaft on a floating platform in the North Sea causing them to become partially submerged.

The workers had been descending in a lift located in one of the platform legs on the FPF-1 facility during a night shift on 10 December 2020 when the water started to  flood into the lift before they reached the bottom of the shaft. The trio were knee-deep in water by the time the lift was able to be stopped by the workers via the emergency button.

Ithaca Energy (UK) Limited, the owner of FPF-1, pleaded guilty to safety failings at a hearing at Aberdeen Sheriff Court on Thursday, 12 June 2025.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the three men had been tasked with carrying out inspection work at the base of one of the facility’s sub-sea columns.  During preparations to clear the inspection site of standing water beforehand, failings of hardware and incorrect operating procedures caused the bottom of the lift shaft to commence filling with water. Due to a lack of water alarms in the bottom of the lift shaft the control room was unaware that water was filling the shaft.

As the three men descended in the lift, they experienced a ‘rush of air’ before their fears of something being wrong were confirmed when the base of the lift made contact with the water. The three men were able to press an emergency stop button and returned safely to the main deck, with none of them sustaining any injuries.

The HSE investigation found that water marks on the lift door revealed it had reached a level of just under 1.5 metres before the lift was stopped and returned to surface. Ithaca’s own investigation determined that the water level could have actually reached more than three metres, meaning the men would have found it difficult to escape through the top hatch of the lift if the workers had used the lift later and/or had not been successful in bringing the lift to a halt immediately.

HSE issued Ithaca with an improvement notice and work in confined spaces was stopped by the company until February 2021 to allow a full review to take place.

Ithaca Energy (UK) Limited of Queens Road, Aberdeen pleaded guilty to breaching The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, 30 Regulation 4(1) and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Section 33(1)(a). The company was fined £300,000.

HSE inspector Ian Chilley said: “This was a terrifying incident for the workers involved, we are just thankful that no physical harm came to them.

“This fine should send a message and reminder to those operating offshore facilities for them to be extra vigilant.

“It was only a matter of good fortune that this incident didn’t result in serious injury, or worse.”

When passing sentence, the sheriff observed the case marked ‘another reminder of the need for rigorous adherence to health and safety in the oil and gas industry’.

Further information:

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
2. More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
3. Further details on the latest HSE news releases is available.
4. HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.  The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences in Scotland can be found here.

• Two companies also fined.
• Young roofer was on just his second day on the job.
• Falls from height remain one of the leading causes of workplace death and HSE guidance is available.

A director has been given a suspended jail sentence and two companies fined after a young man on just his second day on the job fell to his death at a premises in Walsall.

Adam Brunskill, 22, had been part of a team of four men working on the roof of Bestway Wholesale in Bloxwich Lane, near Reedswood. On 14 July 2020, he fell through an unprotected glass-wire skylight to the concrete floor approximately 23-feet below. He sustained a severe brain injury and died in hospital the following day.

It had only been Adam’s second day working as a roofer on the project to install over-cladding to the large industrial unit.

Wayne Clarey, the director of Wayne Clarey Roofing & Cladding Limited, was given a six-month custodial sentence, suspended for 18 months. His company was fined £45,000, while principal contractor Proclad Developments Limited was fined £400,000.

Working at height remains one of the leading causes of workplace injury and death and HSE has detailed guidance on working safely at height.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that this was a very preventable incident.  The skylights could have been covered or safety netting installed below.

• Proclad (Developments) Limited of Snail Hill, Rotherham pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and Regulation 9 (2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and have been fined £400,000 and ordered to pay costs of £9,089.
• Wayne Clarey Roofing & Cladding Limited of High Escombe, Bishop Auckland pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and Regulation 9 (2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and have been fined £45,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,000.
• Director Wayne Clarey of High Escombe, Bishop Auckland pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and Regulation 9 (2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and was sentenced to 26 weeks imprisonment suspended for 18 months.

HSE inspector Gareth Langston said: “The collective failures of those responsible for site safety in this case has cost a young man his life.

“Adam Brunskill was at the very beginning of his career but was not kept safe.

“When working on fragile roofing, or where skylights are in place on a metal roof, safety netting is essential.

“Had these measures been put in place Adam would still be alive.”

Further information:

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
2. More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
3. Further details on the latest HSE news releases is available.
4. HSE guidance on working safely at height is available.
5. HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.  The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences can be found here.

A housebuilder has been fined £800,000 after a teen apprentice was injured when a temporary stairwell covering collapsed.

Charlie Marsh, 17, had been working as a contractor on a Taylor Wimpey UK Limited site as it built around 450 new homes on its Meadfields site in Weston-Super-Mare.

The apprentice bricklayer, from Whitchurch in Bristol, was less than 12 months into his career when the incident happened. An investigator for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said the teen was lucky to escape serious injury.

On 22 August 2023 Charlie had been loading concrete blocks onto the temporary flooring on the first floor of one of the newly built homes. The blocks were being loaded into stacks of between 10 and 20, one of which was on or near to a temporary stairwell covering. This was a large area covered with a timber sheet material laid over joists – both of which would be later removed to install the staircase.

However, the area collapsed, causing Charlie and around 20kg of the concrete blocks to fall more than two metres to the ground below. He sustained injuries to his fingers, hand, wrist and shoulder.

The subsequent HSE investigation found that the joists under the timber sheet material should have been back propped. This was mentioned a number of times in Taylor Wimpey’s own health and safety manual for the site, however, it had been missed on this particular plot. Had suitably designed back propping been used, it is unlikely the incident would have occurred.

• HSE guidance (L153 – Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015) states that all practicable steps must be taken to prevent danger to any person from structural collapses and that an employer has a duty to ensure that contractors under their control should not be exposed to risks of their health or safety (Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974).

Taylor Wimpey UK Limited pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £800,000 and ordered to pay £6,240.25 costs with a £2000 victim surcharge at the North Somerset Magistrates’ Court on 3 June 2025.

HSE inspector Derek Mclauchlan said “Everyone working in construction has a responsibility to ensure people are safe.

“Any work involving structural stability is potentially high risk and proper planning and implementation should be given.

“This incident could have been avoided had the right steps been taken.

“The failures of Taylor Wimpey resulted in a young man at the very beginning of his career being injured. Charlie was lucky those injuries were not far more serious.

“Lessons should be learned.”

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE Enforcement Lawyer Samantha Tiger and Paralegal Officer Rebecca Withell.

Further information:

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
2. More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
3. Further details on the latest HSE news releases is available.
4. Relevant guidance can be found here The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 – HSE.
5. HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.  The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences can be found here.

• James Young died in hospital more than a week after the fall
• Locking fault on “ambulift” had been in place for some time before incident
• HSE guidance is available on the maintenance of work equipment.

The owner of Edinburgh Airport has been fined £80,000 after a pensioner fell from an ambulift on his return from holiday.

Following the fall, James Young was admitted to hospital, but died more than a week later from his injuries .

The 81-year-old had just landed at the airport after holidaying on the Greek island of Rhodes with his wife Anne, when the incident happened on 28 November 2023.

Mr Young and his wife, who has mobility issues, had been waiting for one of the airport’s ambulifts to assist them disembarking the aircraft shortly after 4pm. The couple had been two of six people requiring the assistance of the ambulift following the flight.

Ambulifts are a specially designed vehicle to assist passengers with reduced mobility. Edinburgh airport has several such vehicles which are owned, maintained and operated by the airport and driven by its employees.

Passengers who cannot embark or disembark using the aircraft steps can use an ambulift cabin, which is capable of being elevated to the level of the aircraft’s door and lowered to the chassis of the vehicle. At the rear of the vehicle, a tail lift platform is then deployed to the same level as the floor level of the passenger compartment.

Passengers then exit the compartment onto the tail lift, which unlike the compartment, is not enclosed, but has safety side rails and a rear gate around its perimeter. Once secure on the tail lift, it is lowered to ground level, allowing its users to move on to the tarmac step free.

Mr Young attempted to pass a piece of hand luggage to a worker on the ground whilst the tail lift had not yet been lowered. It is believed he leant  against the safety rail, which swung open causing him to fall approximately five feet to the ground below.

He was assisted to his feet and helped into a wheelchair and although he wasn’t thought to have sustained serious injury at time, he was taken to hospital. When examined at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, it was found Mr Young had sustained  serious injuries and he subsequently died on 7 December as a result of these injuries.

As a result of the incident, Edinburgh Airport Limited submitted a RIDDOR to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and an investigation was carried out. That found that when it was raised from the ground, the locking mechanism on the tail lift’s safety rail was misaligned, meaning it could potentially open outwards if pressure was applied to it. When the safety rail moved outwards from the lifting platform an open edge was created and it was through this that Mr Young fell.

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 require every employer to ensure that work equipment is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair. Equipment must be maintained so that its performance does not deteriorate to the extent that people are put at risk. HSE guidance is available on the maintenance of work equipment.

Edinburgh Airport Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and Section 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £80,000 at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on 10 June 2025.

HSE inspector Jurate Gruzaite, said: “Edinburgh Airport Limited had a duty to ensure all of its work equipment was maintained in an efficient state and in working order. The company failed in this duty and had a role in a family tragedy that unfolded the moment Mr and Mrs Young returned from holiday.

“It is clear that the fault on the ambulift had been in place before Mr Young fell from the platform.

“We can only hope this tragic incident is one the industry can learn from.”

Further information:

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
2. More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
3. Further details on the latest HSE news releases is available.
4. HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.  The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences in Scotland can be found here.

Ahead of Open Farm Sunday (Sunday 8 June) the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is highlighting guidance available to farmers to help them keep people safe.

As we enter the summer months, an increasing number of working farms are taking the opportunity to hold open farm events and allow members of the public to visit their farms.

Open farm events can benefit both visitors and farmers alike, but it is crucial that farmers understand the health and safety measures they should take to keep visitors safe and well.

HSE inspector Wayne Owen said: “Open farm events provide a great opportunity for the public to learn more about farming, but it must be done safely.

“Farmers choosing to hold open farm events should make sure that they comply with health and safety legislation. It is extremely important that farmers understand the risks on their farm and ensure that visitors are protected from them.

“Farms should ensure that safety risks when offering activities like trailer rides are controlled. Our guidance can help: Carrying passengers on farm trailers AIS36. However, there are also health risks from contact with the animals that also need attention and must be controlled.

“The Access to Farms industry group has produced an Industry Code of Practice (ICOP) which is available to download free from their website. Farmers should read and follow the guidance so that visitors remain safe and well on their farms. The ICOP includes a useful checklist for farmers to use.”

Key components of a well-managed open farm event include:

• Making sure the event is risk assessed and well planned.
• Ensuring that the farm and farm staff understand the risks on site, including zoonotic risk (i.e. risks from diseases or bugs carried by animals).
• Providing visitors with enough information on the risks and the controls in place (e.g. the importance of properly washing hands after touching animals, immediately before eating or drinking, and before leaving site).
• Controlling visitor access to animals.
• Supervising visitor contact with animals. Providing separate clean areas for petting of animals. Preventing visitors going into the pens with animals.
• Providing suitable facilities for washing hands (normally this will be hot and cold water, liquid soap and paper towels) and directing visitors to use them after petting animals, immediately before eating food, before and after using any play equipment, and before leaving site. Hand washing gels are not an acceptable substitute for washing facilities.
• If visitors are allowed to consume food or drink on site, providing separate clean eating areas, near hand washing facilities.
• Good prominent signage on site giving important information to visitors (but don’t rely on signage alone to give those important messages).
• Ensuring that visitors are not exposed to other risks on the farm e.g. by fencing off high risk areas or activities and keeping people away from traffic routes and moving vehicles.

By following these principles farms can hold safe and enjoyable open farm events.

Further information:

1. The Health and Safety Executive(HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We prevent work-related death, injury and ill health through regulatory actions that range from influencing behaviours across whole industry sectors through to targeted interventions on individual businesses. These activities are supported by globally recognised scientific expertise.
2. Further details on the latest HSE news releasesis available.
3. HSE was consulted in the production of the ICOP. It provides sensible, proportionate and balanced advice to farms on how to comply with health and safety law and keep visitors safe and well.

A college in Nantwich that specialises in outdoor-based careers has been fined £40,000 after a student’s fingers were severed when his hand came into contact with a mitre saw.

Aaron Maguire, from Crewe, was a second year Horticulture student at Reaseheath College when his hand came into contact with the blade of the saw on 20 September 2023. He had been using the saw to cut a piece of wood along its length when the wood twisted and pulled his hand into the cutting disc of the saw.

This resulted in the then 17-year old cutting through several fingers and the thumb on his left hand. Following an eight hour operation, surgeons managed to successfully re-attach Aaron’s thumb and index finger, but the middle finger could not be saved.

Keen hockey player Aaron, who is now 19, said everyday tasks were now more difficult.

“Although my left hand is not my dominant hand, I have had to adjust to doing things that I would normally do with my left hand, such as cutting food and picking up everyday objects like glasses and cups,” he said.

“I cannot grip things properly and it makes it difficult to do the hobbies I did.

“Prior to the incident, I was a keen hockey player. I still try to play hockey now, but it is nowhere near the level I was playing at before I had my injury.”

More than 18 months on, Aaron has been told that he requires further surgery to his middle finger, which he hopes won’t affect his plans to go to university in September.

“There are a number of reasons why an operation needs to take place.

“One of them is because the bone in my index finger is gradually sliding down and pushing into the skin on my hand.

“The operation is due to take place later this year. If the timing of the operation occurs around September when I am due to start my university course, this will have a significant impact on my studies.”

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the college failed to adequately risk assess or produce a written safe system of work for using the mitre saw. The college did not record what training and instruction was given to students on the use of the saw.

There was no process to determine whether supervision was needed, nor was there any refresher training for using the saw following the students’ return from their summer break.

On the day of the incident, Aaron had been seen by the tutor earlier that morning using the saw improperly. Despite this, he was allowed to use the saw again later that day without supervision.

HSE guidance states that a suitable and sufficient risk assessment should be carried out to identify measures that can be taken to overcome the risks that the hazard presents. It also states that young people warrant special consideration due to their judgement and lack of experience.

Employers need to satisfy themselves that in addition to being adequately trained, users can demonstrate competence, and the level of supervision should be directly related to the level of competence. (Further guidance can be found here: Safe use of woodworking machinery. Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 as applied to woodworking machinery. Approved Code of Practice and guidance L114.

Reaseheath College in Nantwich, pleaded guilty to Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The college was fined £40,000 and ordered to pay £6,106 in costs at Chester Magistrates’ Court on 4 June 2025.

HSE inspector Summer Foster said: “Places of education and workplaces must ensure that they have properly assessed the risks where young people are using dangerous machinery.

“If suitable training, an assessment of competence and appropriate supervision had been carried out then this accident would not have been able to happen.

“A young man has been left with life-changing injuries as a result.”

The HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Edward Parton and paralegal officer Jason Dix.

Further information:

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
2. More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
3. Further details on the latest HSE news releases is available.
4. Relevant guidance can be found here Safe use of woodworking machinery. Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 as applied to woodworking machinery. Approved Code of Practice and guidance L114.
5. HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.  The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences can be found here.

• HSE guidance says all work at height must be properly planned

A construction company and its director have been fined after a worker fell through the roof of a sheep barn.

Jack Croft, 30, suffered life changing injuries after the incident in Leyburn, North Yorkshire.

He was working for Norman Iveson Steel Products, as part of a project to extend the sheep barn. Roof sheets needed to be installed, bridging the gap between the old roof and new. Jack, from Bedale, was carrying out the work on 11 October 2022 when he stepped onto a fragile roof light which immediately broke under his weight. He fell from a height of around six metres.

Mr. Croft suffered significant life changing injuries, including five cranial fractures, 10 fractured ribs, a cranial bleed, hearing loss and fractures to his spine, eye socket, cheek, wrist and shoulder. He also suffered a collapsed left lung and a pulmonary embolism.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the company had failed to implement basic working at height control measures, such as safety netting, to prevent falls from height in this area. The netting that was in place on site did not cover full work areas and was installed by persons without the sufficient skills to rig it. HSE also found a failure to plan, manage and monitor the construction phase, to ensure it was carried out in a safe manner.

HSE has a range of guidance on how to plan and carry out work at height safely: Construction – Work at height – HSE

Norman Iveson Steel Products Limited, of Hill Crest, North Yorkshire, pleaded guilty to Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £100,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,101 at York Magistrates Court on 22 May 2025.

Phillip Iveson, a director of the company, pleaded guilty to Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 194 and fined £1,822 and told to pay costs of £2,358.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Gavin Carruthers, said: “This was a tragic incident where a young man narrowly escaped death but received life changing injuries. Falls from height continue to be the leading cause of workplace death in Great Britain and this incident was fully avoidable if steps were taken to address the risks.”

This prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Karen Park and paralegal officer Rebecca Withell.

Further information:

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
2. More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
3. Further details on the latest HSE news releases is available.
4. Relevant guidance can be found here – Construction – Work at height
5. HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.  The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences can be found here.

A multi-national company has been fined £26,000 after a radiographer was overexposed to ionising radiation.

The 69-year-old man had been working for Mistras Group Limited at its former site in Hartlepool in December 2020, when the company was notified by their approved dosimetry service that he had received a dose in excess of legal limits.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) was also notified, with the regulator prosecuting the company following its investigation.

• Ionising radiation has many uses in industry, such as energy production, manufacturing, medicine and research. It gives many benefits to society. However, it is important the risks of ionising radiation are managed sensibly to protect workers and the public.

The incident happened when a gamma emitting radioactive source used for radiography had not returned to its shielded container. Due to poor compliance with the company’s own radiation safety protocols this was not identified promptly, resulting in a radiation overexposure to the radiographer.

No symptoms were reported, however excessive exposure to ionising radiation can increase the potential of developing certain cancers.

The HSE investigation found that pre-use safety checks had not been completed and recorded by the radiographer. These are key stages in confirming that radiography systems are operating correctly and ensuring the safe use of equipment.

Alarming Electronic Personal Dosemeters (EPD’s) and radiation monitors had been provided by the company but were not being used by the radiographer. If they had been, their alarm would have gone off highlighting the presence of radiation and allowed the radiographer to retreat to a safe location. Radiation incidents had not been reported correctly.

The investigation also found there had been a number of failings made by the company to ensure employees were following its rules and procedures for radiation protection. Instructions within their local rules had not been followed and supervision had not been sufficient to identify the lack of compliance. The company had received previous enforcement by HSE for similar failings.

• The practice of industrial radiography falls under the Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017.
• Due to the high radiation doses associated with this form of non-destructive testing, companies must adopt routine working practices capable of keeping radiation exposures of employees as low as reasonably practicable.
• Guidance on what needs to be considered and what is required can be found in the Approved Code of Practice & Guidance L121: Work with Ionising Radiation, the Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017 (ACoP). There is also a HSE information sheet Industrial radiography – managing radiation risks Ionising Radiation Protection Series No. 1(rev 2 -2018).

Mistras Group Limited, of Norman Way, Cambridge, pleaded guilty to breaching the Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017, Regulation 12(1) and Regulation 9(1). The company was fined £26,000 and ordered to pay £11,353 in costs at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates’ Court on 22 May 2025.

HSE specialist inspector for radiation Elizabeth Reeves said: “Industrial radiography is a hazardous practice if not managed properly.

“Radiation protection is an area where employers and employees must not become complacent with. Safety checks and the use of monitoring equipment such as EPD’s and radiation monitors are essential elements to ensuring the safe operation of equipment and protection to personnel.

“This prosecution demonstrates that the courts, and HSE, take failure to comply with the regulations extremely seriously.”

This prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Jonathan Bambro and paralegal officer Rebecca Forman.

Further information:

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
2. More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
3. Further details on the latest HSE news releases is available.
4. Relevant guidance can be found here https://www.hse.gov.uk/radiation/ionising/index.htm
5. HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.  The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences can be found here.