• Apprentice fell through fragile roof.
• One company failed to properly plan for the work.
• Second company failed to produce documents as part of investigation.

Two companies have been fined after an apprentice fell from height while installing CCTV in Weymouth.

The then 20-year-old electrical apprentice had been working for Tristan G Murless Limited at one of their sites at a commercial industrial estate at Lynch Lane on 13 July 2022. He had been using a makeshift crawling board when he fell around 11 feet through a fragile roof to the concrete floor below.

The incident took place on the roof of a lean-to attached to a main warehouse. The project involved the installation of electrical cables and conduit around the perimeter of the warehouse in readiness for the installation of CCTV. The man lost consciousness at some point prior to the arrival of the ambulance and could not feel his body. He was unable to walk temporarily after the incident and sustained injuries to his back, including muscular tissue damage which requires physiotherapy.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Tristan G Murless Limited failed to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their employees, by failing to properly plan and provide suitable equipment to prevent the fall through the fragile roof.

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

HSE guidance states that employers must ensure that work at height is properly planned, appropriately supervised, and carried out in a safe manner and that the planning should include the selection of work equipment. Every employer should take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent any personal falling a distance liable to cause personal injury. Workers should not have worked on the fragile roof where it was avoidable. Where roof work is not avoidable, edge protection, roof coverings and stagings or similar should be in use to stop a fall, with personal fall protection where needed.

A second company – Ellis and Partners (Bournemouth) Limited – has also been fined after they failed to comply with a HSE demand to produce documents to assist its criminal investigation into the incident. The request was made by HSE inspector Rebecca Gittoes under section 20 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

Tristan G Murless Limited of Avon Close, Weymouth, Dorset pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £16,000 and ordered to pay £4,168 in costs at Bristol Magistrates Court on 28th November 2025

Ellis and Partners (Bournemouth) Limited of Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, Dorset pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 20(2)(k) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £6,000 and ordered to pay £1,200 in costs.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Rebecca Gittoes said: “Every year, a significant proportion of incidents, many of them serious and fatal, occur as a result of poor work at height planning.

“In this case, a young man at the start of his career was failed by his employer.

“Had the company suitably risk assessed the task, provided suitable work equipment and a safe system of work, this incident would not have happened.

“The case brought against Ellis and Partners (Bournemouth) Limited should also underline to everyone that the HSE and the courts take a failure to comply with section 20 very seriously.

“We will not hesitate to take action against companies which do not co-operate by failing to provide requested documents.”

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Rebecca Schwartz and paralegal officers Daniel Adams and 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 Scotland can be found here.

• Chris Keegan died after being fatally injured at his place of work
• West Yorkshire plant hire company fined £433,550
• HSE found the forklift had not had a full inspection to ensure it was safe to operate after repairs.

The family of a much-loved man have spoken of his ‘horrific’ death at work following the prosecution of his employer this week.

Chris Keegan was killed on 20 November 2023 while working for Hessle Plant Ltd as a delivery driver at its main depot in Castleford, West Yorkshire. Chris’ widow Dianne said: “Chris was a wonderful, kind and generous man, who would do anything he could for anyone. He especially did anything he could for me.

“My heart is broken, and I will never get over losing my husband in such a horrific way. He never deserved to die in such tragic circumstances.”

Leeds Magistrates’ Court heard that Mr Keegan had been tasked with returning the forklift truck to a customer’s site in Sheffield following repair work to its transmission.

As he reversed the vehicle onto the trailer shortly after 6am, it fell from the side of the trailer bed. Mr Keegan was thrown from the seat and became trapped between the chassis of the forklift and a neighbouring trailer.

Mr Keegans wife and two of his stepdaughters arrived at the depot as the emergency services fought to save Chris’ life, but tragically his injuries proved fatal, and he passed away at the scene.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the forklift had not been subject to a full inspection to ensure it was safe to operate. Examination of the forklift by HSE after the accident found several other defects which should have been identified and rectified before it was operated.

The investigation found that whilst Hessle Plant Ltd would undertake a full pre-delivery inspection on forklift trucks being delivered to new customers, at the time of the accident the company did not do this for machines being returned to existing customers.

HSE also found that many of the company’s employees would rarely wear seatbelts when operating forklift trucks, and there was no system in place for monitoring and enforcing seatbelt use on site.

HSE guidance states that employers should ensure that work equipment – such as a forklift truck – has been properly maintained and inspected if necessary to ensure it remains in a safe condition to operate. HSE guidance also states that where seatbelts are fitted to a counterbalance forklift truck, they should be used. Further guidance for rider-operated lift trucks can be found at HSE’s website.

Hessle Plant Ltd, of Carrwood Road Industrial Estate, Glasshoughton, Castleford, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £433,550 and ordered to pay £8,146.80 in costs and a £2,000 victim surcharge as Leeds Magistrates’ Court on 26 November.

Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector, David Beaton, said: “This was a tragic and preventable death. Mr Keegan was placed at undue risk by operating a machine with underlying maintenance defects, which he would have been unaware of when attempting to reverse the forklift in the dark onto a trailer with an exposed edge.

“Had Mr Keegan been wearing the seatbelt provided, the accident he suffered would likely not have proven fatal.

“Every year there are fatal accidents caused by machinery which has not been properly maintained or inspected, and forklift truck drivers not wearing seatbelts. This case should underline to all businesses, which hire out or operate forklift trucks, the importance of keeping machinery in efficient working order and ensuring the use of seatbelts by forklift drivers is appropriately supervised.”

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Iain Jordan and paralegal officer Stephen Grabe.

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 Rider-operated lift trucks – 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.

• Worker suffered life-changing injuries.
• There had been a similar incident at the company in 2021.
• Company fined £200,000 and ordered to pay full prosecution costs.

A manufacturer of wood-burning stoves on the Isle of Wight has been fined £200,000 after an employee had his lower leg amputated following crush injuries caused when heavy metal sheets fell on him.

The man was working for A J Wells & Sons Ltd in Newport, when the incident happened on 15 August 2023. He had been moving a trolley loaded with approximately 30 pieces of sheet metal, each weighing more than 20kg, when it toppled over and fell onto his legs. His lower right leg was later amputated as a result of the injuries he sustained.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the work was not being carried out safely. Failures included the use of a trolley that was not suitable for transporting such loads, unclear routes throughout the factory for moving trolleys, and inadequate training for employees in the safe movement of heavy materials.

HSE also identified that a similar incident had occurred in November 2021, yet the task of moving heavy sheet metal had still not been adequately risk assessed. As a result, a safe system of work had not been introduced. Had appropriate changes been made following the earlier incident, this life-changing injury could have been prevented.

Employers are required to assess work activities and identify suitable measures to ensure tasks can be carried out as safely as reasonably practicable. Work equipment must be suitable for its purpose and employees must receive appropriate training. Further guidance on the Safe use of work equipment – Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER). can be found on HSE’s website.

A J Wells & Sons Ltd, of Bishops Way, Newport, Isle of Wight, PO30 5WS, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £200,000 and ordered to pay £9,056 in prosecution costs at Isle of Wight Magistrates’ Court on 25 November 2025.

HSE inspector Nicola Pinckney said:
“This is a particularly unfortunate case as lessons from a previous similar incident had not been learnt. This young man will be affected by this accident for the rest of his life and has to suffer the consequences of the company’s failings.

“I hope this case serves to highlight to the industry the importance of ensuring health and safety is taken seriously and all parts of workers’ employment are properly risk assessed, and risks are controlled.”

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Matt Reynolds and supported by HSE paralegal officer Farhat Basir.

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 are available.
4. Relevant guidance can be found here Safe use of work equipment – Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.
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 large offshore oil and gas company has been sentenced and fined £560,000 after failing to properly maintain pipework for seven years.

Pipework on Shell UK’s Brent Charlie platform in the North Sea deteriorated to such an extent that contained hydrocarbon fluids escaped, forming a potentially catastrophic explosive and flammable mixture that could have ignited.

In addition to the release, ventilation fans designed to prevent, control or mitigate the effects of escaped hydrocarbon gas did not function properly as they were also not suitably maintained. This led to a large release of mixed phase crude oil and gas from the corroded pipework. The probability of ignition was assessed to be less than 1%. 

Aberdeen Sheriff Court heard on Tuesday 25 November 2025 how, on 19 May 2017, there was an uncontrolled hydrocarbon release incident from a Return Oil Line (ROL) pipework inside concrete leg Column 4 of the Brent Charlie offshore installation. The release involved 200kg of gas and 1,550kg of crude oil – the largest uncontrolled hydrocarbon release on the UK Continental Shelf reported to HSE in 2017.

The release placed over 170 platform personnel at risk from a potentially catastrophic fire and explosion had the escaping hydrocarbon gas ignited inside the concrete leg.

HSE noted that the platform manager, and the various emergency teams, deserve praise for their decision making and actions taken that assisted with preventing the incident from escalating. Their sound judgement and decision making ensured the situation was eventually brought under control.

An HSE investigation found that deficiencies in Shell’s safety management system led to the release. The ROL pipework in Column 4 was not properly maintained for several years. The pipework was installed for short-term use and was due to be removed in 2010 but remained in place for seven years, during which time it suffered corrosion damage. It failed on 19 May 2017 and a large volume of gas was uncontrollably released into the leg. Ventilation extract and supply fans designed to prevent and mitigate this major accident hazard were also inadequately maintained, which exacerbated the risk to the 176 people on the platform.

HSE were involved in the production of the Energy Institute’s Guidance for corrosion management in oil and gas production and processing, as well as several other topic-specific documents. Extensive guidance and resources for the oil and gas industry are available on HSE’s website here Offshore oil and gas – HSE.

Shell UK Limited pleaded guilty to two charges under the Offshore Installations (Prevention of Fire and Explosion, and Emergency Response) Regulations 1995 (PFEER). Sheriff Ian Duguid, in his sentencing remarks, observed that Shell UK “ought to have recognised that the temporary carbon steel spool was not suitable for such a line and should have been replaced.” After considering mitigating factors, Shell was fined £560,000.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Offshore Health and Safety Inspector Dozie Azubike said: “At more than 1,750kg, Shell Brent Charlie’s hydrocarbon release was the largest reported to HSE in 2017. This release occurred in a confined space with limited access – it is simply fortunate that no one was in the leg at the time, or they could have been asphyxiated from the hydrocarbon-rich atmosphere, quite apart from any fire and explosion risk.

“Although the offshore industry has managed to reduce its overall number of hydrocarbon releases, in most years there are still several which, if ignited, would result in potentially catastrophic consequences.

“This case highlights the importance of oil and gas dutyholders reviewing their current management of change processes for temporary spools and their subsequent removal, strengthening inspection regimes to identify potential internal corrosion within pipework, and ensuring that inspection frequency of safety-critical equipment considers full analysis of the equipment’s maintenance history.”

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 Offshore oil and gas – 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.

• Incident happened at Tom Nan Clach Wind Farm near Inverness.
• Worker was seriously injured following electrical flashover.
• HSE guidance is available.

A wind farm management services company has been fined £80,000 after a worker was seriously injured by an electrical flashover.

Natural Power Services Limited had sent the then 38-year-old to carry out maintenance work in an electrical substation within the Tom Nan Clach Wind Farm, near Inverness on 23^rd June 2020. His injuries resulted in him sustained life-changing injuries that have required multiple surgeries.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the incident happened following a departure from the prepared switching programme. This meant work was allowed to be carried out on one of the two electrical cabinets while the other remained live, allowing part of the electrical system to be energised during the maintenance work.

The HSE investigation found that had the initial switching programme prepared by Natural Power Services Limited been correctly followed, the incident would not have occurred. The company did not have a suitable system or process in place to check or review switching programmes to ensure that the procedures were correctly observed at all times, or to approve any changes to the initial switching programmes.

Free guidance for employers is available on the HSE website, hse.gov.uk, about electrical safety and managing health and safety.

Natural Power Services Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 3(1) and Section 33(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £80,000 at Inverness Sheriff Court on 25 November 2025.

Speaking after the hearing, an HSE spokesperson said: “This was a wholly avoidable incident caused by the failure of the company to implement a safe system of work.

“The company should have ensured there was a suitably rigorous process for checking and reviewing the work. This would have ensured those doing the work were adhering to switching programmes in a manner that was suitable and safe.

This would have been a reasonably practicable measure to address the risks arising from the subsequent introduction of additional parallel works that might interfere with the previously planned switching programme.”

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 about electrical safety and managing health and safety 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.

• Alban Watts died due to a ‘basic and simple’ failure.
• Dangerous parts of machinery had inadequate guarding.
• HSE guidance on working with machinery is available.

The family of a much loved man from Cumbria have spoken of their anger that his life was worth less than “the cost of a 50 pence screw”.

Alban Watts was killed while working for egg producer Bell Mount Farming Limited at its site in Great Salkeld in Penrith on 11 January 2023. The 61-year-old, who lived in the village of Blencow, died after being strangled, when his clothes became entangled in a hen feeding system at the farm.

Speaking after the company was fined £50,000, his brother Martin and sister Louise Robinson spoke of their sadness and anger at his death.

“Losing Alban has taken a part of our trio, without him we are an incomplete unit,” the siblings said.

“Not a day goes by where he is not missed.

“Alban worked at Bell Mount for 12 years and he enjoyed his job. But it’s taken the life of a member of our family for them to do their job.

“We are angry that his life was worth less than a 50p screw to a multi-million pound company. Such a small item could have saved his life. You can’t replace a person who meant so much to us.”

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Bell Mount Farming Limited failed to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery – in this case the rotating sprocket of the drive mechanism which powered the feeding system  in the poultry shed. The system operated for three minute periods at set times throughout the day; the remainder of the time it was motionless.

Mr Watts was working alone in one of the poultry sheds when his clothing came into contact with the unguarded sprocket during one of these feeding periods, causing it to become entangled. The investigation also identified that the guard designed to prevent such access was not fixed in place and could simply be lifted off.

Further examination of the guard identified that the bolt holes in the guard were stripped, preventing it from being secured to the frame of the drive unit.  Additionally, these holes in the guard did not align with those in the frame, making it impossible for the guard to be fixed securely.

Alban’s mother Noreen said her son was an accomplished mechanic, joiner and carpenter and that his death had been ‘cruel’.

“Mere words cannot express the horror and distress of hearing such an awful death and I can only hope Alban didn’t suffer,” she said.

“I have now had to go through every parent’s nightmare of surviving their own child, in tragic circumstances.

“Above all, I want lessons to be learnt from this tragedy.

“Due to the lack of a machine guard, my dear son Alban has been killed and taken from me.”

HSE guidance states employers must take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery.  This will normally be fixed guards which prevent persons coming into contact with those parts and require a tool to be removed; this was the expected control in this instance.  Further guidance can be found here Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) – HSE.

Bell Mount Farming Limited, of Stainton, Penrith, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1)(a) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay £6,038 in costs at a hearing at Warrington Magistrates’ Court on 20 November 2025.

After the hearing HSE Inspector Matthew Shepherd said: “What is most tragic about this case is the failure of the company was such a basic and simple one.

“What was such an easy fault to fix cost a much loved man his life and left a family without a brother and a son.

“Preventing access to dangerous parts of machinery is a well-known and long-standing part of any health and safety management system.

“Alban’s death shows the importance of ensuring machinery is adequately guarded and the devastating consequences of getting it wrong.

“We will not hesitate to take action against companies which do not do all that they should to keep people safe.”

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Matthew Reynolds and paralegal officer Farhat Basir.

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 Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) – 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.

• Employees exposed to asbestos risk during dismantling of wall panelling.
• Asbestos had not been identified in previous surveys of the studio buildings.
• HSE investigation found failures in assessment, training and emergency arrangements.

A film studio in Hertfordshire has been fined £6,000 after poor management of minor building works led to the disturbance of asbestos – putting employees at risk of exposure to asbestos fibres.

Maintenance staff at Elstree Film Studios in Borehamwood had been asked to remove acoustic wall panelling from one of the studio buildings in preparation for the replacement of the studio doors by an external contractor.

Employees were told that no asbestos was present and began dismantling the panels using claw hammers and crowbars on 22 July 2022.

Shortly after starting work, one employee identified a layer of insulation that he believed to be asbestos and immediately stopped. Subsequent testing confirmed the presence of asbestos – Amosite/Chrysotile and Crocidolite – which required licensed removal.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive found that neither the studio’s asbestos management surveys nor the specific refurbishment surveys had considered the wall surfaces within stages 7, 8, and 9.

As a result, the acoustic wall panelling dismantled by employees fell outside the scope of any assessment. The investigation also identified failings in training and inadequate emergency arrangements to deal with asbestos disturbance.

HSE guidance states that employers must not undertake work liable to expose people to asbestos unless a suitable assessment has been carried out and a proper plan is in place. This often includes the use of licensed contractors with appropriate controls to manage the risks.

Elstree Film Studios Limited, of Civic Offices, Elstree Way, Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 5, 10 and 15 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. The company was fined £6,000 and ordered to pay £6,790 in costs and a £2,000 victim surcharge at Stevenage Magistrates’ Court on 20 November 2025. All sums are to be paid within seven days.

HSE Inspector Stephen Manley said:

“Poor management of asbestos can lead to workers being exposed to the harmful effects of asbestos. Those in control of buildings must ensure they have a suitable assessment in place, and those undertaking intrusive work should be provided with appropriate information – which, for this type of work, will often require a specific localised survey by a competent person.”

The prosecution was brought by HSE Enforcement Lawyer Gemma Zakrzewski and Paralegal Officer Helen Hugo.

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 at Asbestos – 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.

• Worker sustained serious injuries when his foot was trapped in machinery.
• Company had failed to prevent access to dangerous parts.
• HSE guidance is available.

A Yorkshire animal feed manufacturer has been fined £500,000 after a worker lost part of his foot when it was entangled in machinery.

William Thompson (York) Limited pleaded guilty after failing to prevent access to a rotating auger – a tool consisting of a central shaft with a blade wrapped around it – which is designed to transport excess feed away from a press.

The 41-year-old had been working as a supervisor at the company’s Jubilee Mill site in York on 14 November 2023. At the time of the incident, the man had been trying to resolve a maintenance issue with the machinery. However, he was able to open the press while its parts remained in operation at significant speed. His foot became entangled in the rotating auger and he sustained injuries so serious he remained in hospital for a period of six weeks.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that William Thompson (York) Limited failed to prevent access to dangerous parts of the machinery and also to carry out a suitable risk assessment of the work being done.

HSE guidance states employers must take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. This will normally be by fixed guarding but where routine access is needed, interlocked guards may be needed to stop the movement of dangerous parts before a person can reach the danger zone. Further guidance can be found here: Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) – HSE.

William Thompson (York) Limited, of Main Street, Malton, North Yorkshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act etc 1974. The company was fined £500,000 and ordered to pay £4,455 in costs at York Magistrates court on 18 November 2025.

HSE Inspector Shauna Halstead said: “This company’s failures resulted in a man sustaining life-changing injuries.

“Too many workers are injured or killed every year because of failures to guard dangerous parts of machinery.

“Companies must implement safe working practices when carrying out maintenance operations.

“We will not hesitate to take action against companies which do not do all they should to keep people safe when working with machinery.

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Arfaq Nabi and 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. Relevant guidance can be found here Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) – 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.

• Employee died after being trapped under fallen pallet
• Company failed to undertake a suitable and sufficient risk assessment
• Systagenix Wound Management Manufacturing Limited t/a Scapa Healthcare Limited fined £600,000

A global manufacturing company has been fined £600,000 after an employee suffered fatal injuries following an incident at the premises in Airedale Mills, Gargrave, Craven.

On 21^st September 2020 Tony Snowden, 56, was fatally injured when a pallet that was stacked on top of another pallet fell trapping him between the pallet and a ledge on a wall behind him.

The loaded pallet in total weighed 592kg and other employees in the area had to ‘unload’ the pallet as it was too heavy for them to lift in order to remove it from Mr Snowden. Sadly, when the pallet was removed Mr Snowden had died from his injuries.

A HSE investigation found the company failed to conduct risk assessments considering load, height, weight and stability. The company stored three-legged pallets without racking systems, stacking them on top of each other at floor level. The investigation concluded these pallets should never have been stacked vertically.

Although the company had a “Procedure for Pallet Handling Policy” not all employees working in the RMS area had been trained on it. No evidence was found that Mr Snowden had been trained on the procedure.

Systagenix Wound Management Manufacturing Limited t/a Scapa Healthcare Limited of 997 Manchester Road, Ashton Under Lyne, pleaded guilty to a single charge of breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The court was told that the main failings of the company were:

• Failing to undertake a suitable and sufficient risk assessment of the storage of goods pallets in the bulk storage area, and in particular failing to consider their height, weight and stability.
• Failing to put in place measures to prevent double stacking and falling pallets;
• Failing to provide adequate training for storing goods pallets in the RMS area;
• Failing to ensure adequate monitoring and supervision of the condition and storage of goods pallets stored in the RMS area.

The company was fined £600,000 and ordered to pay £15,000 in costs at Leeds Magistrates’ Court on 12 November 2025.

Further information is available in HSE’s Guidance ‘Pallet Safety’ – PM15 Pallet safety – HSE.

Following the hearing, HSE Inspector Kirsty Storer-Cottrell said:

“This tragic incident could have been easily prevented had a suitable and sufficient risk assessment taken place and the actions identified implemented. Training, monitoring and supervision along with risk control measures, including not double stacking these pallets, would have prevented a fatality happening.”

This prosecution was brought by HSE Enforcement Lawyer Jonathan Bambro 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 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. hse.gov.uk
2. More about the legislation referred to in this case can be found at: legislation.gov.uk/
3. HSE news releases are available at: http://press.hse.gov.uk
4. HSE guidance and information on Pallet safety is available here: Pallet safety – HSE