– 17-year-old apprentice injured by a metal cutting guillotine

– An HSE investigation found a large gap in the bed of the guillotine that allowed access to dangerous parts of the machinery

– The company had failed to identify risk even after the incident had taken place

A Rotherham-based metal fabrication company has been sentenced after pleading guilty to health and safety failings that led to a young apprentice being injured by dangerous parts of a metal cutting guillotine during training.

On Friday 8 November 2024, a 17-year-old apprentice at MTL Advanced Ltd was cutting sheet metal in preparation for welding practice as part of their apprenticeship training. The guillotine was located within a dedicated Apprentice Training Workshop, where first-year apprentices learn and practise metal fabrication techniques before moving into the company’s main manufacturing areas in their second and third years.

The apprentice made several successful cuts, but on the final cut their thumb came into contact with the machine’s clamps, causing a crush injury.

The HSE launched an investigation and identified, from documents provided by the company before an on-site visit, that a large gap in the bed of the guillotine was allowing access to dangerous parts of the machinery. Critically, the company had failed to identify this risk even after the incident had taken place.

A Prohibition Notice was served remotely by HSE to control the ongoing risk. Following its service, HSE Inspectors attended the site and identified further issues with the guillotine requiring immediate remedy.

HSE provides extensive guidance on managing risks in the workplace, including preventing access to dangerous parts of machinery and employing young persons in training. Guidance notes that young people are likely to be new to the workplace and so are at more risk of injury in the first six months of a job, as they may be less aware of risks.

A wider inspection of the Apprentice Training Workshop revealed additional health and safety failings, including access to live electrical parts, further instances of unguarded dangerous machinery, and deficiencies in the system of inspection for workshop equipment.

MTL Advanced Ltd, of Britannia House, Junction Street, Darwen, Lancashire, BB3 2RB, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined £140,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £5,013, with a Victim Surcharge of £2,000, at Sheffield Magistrates’ Court.

Speaking after the hearing, HM Principal Inspector of Health and Safety Chris Tilley said: “Young people and apprentices are at the beginning of their career and so  when it comes to workplace risks,  employers must  take particular care to assess those risks and fulfil their duty to keep them safe. Had this machinery been effectively guarded, this injury would never have happened.”

HSE provides extensive guidance on managing workplace risks, including preventing access to dangerous parts of machinery and employing young people in training:

This prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Chloe Ward and Paralegal Officer Hannah Snelling.

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 legislationreferred to in this case is available.
3. Further details on the latest HSE news releasesis available.
4. Relevant guidance can be found here Managing risks and risk assessment at work: Overview – 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.

• 19-year-old labourer died after falling six floors from a ventilation shaft
• HSE investigation found that the ventilation shaft had been covered only by a sheet of plasterboard and roofing foam
• Jerram Falkus Construction Limited fined £40,200

A construction firm has been fined £40,200 after a teenage labourer died falling down a ventilation shaft on a London building site.

Renols Lleshi, 19, was helping to dismantle scaffolding on the 12th floor roof garden of a block of flats being built at the Ark Soane Academy site, Mill Hill Road, London W3 on 5 July 2023. As he stepped onto a ventilation shaft the covering gave way, and he fell six floors to his death.

Renols father said “My family and I are devastated by the loss of Renols. To know that his death was caused by an accident which was entirely avoidable only makes our loss even harder to cope with.

“We are grateful to the Health & Safety Executive for their efforts to investigate the accident and prosecute one of those responsible for Renols’s death.  However, nothing anybody can do can bring our loved one back or lessen our grief in any way.”

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that the ventilation shaft had been covered only by a sheet of plasterboard and roofing foam. Routine inspections of the building did not include the roof garden area, meaning the inadequate covering went undetected and no warning was given to the scaffolding team.

HSE guidance on working at height states that employers should carry out as much work as possible from the ground and ensure workers can safely access and leave areas where work at height is required. Equipment used for working at height must be suitable, stable and strong enough for the task and properly maintained.

Employers and those in control of work at height must ensure activities are properly planned, supervised and carried out by competent people, including the use of appropriate equipment.

Jerram Falkus Construction Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. The company was fined £42,200, a surcharge of £2000 and ordered to pay £5000 in costs at City of London Magistrates Court on 18 March 2026.

HSE Inspector Natalie Prince said: “Falls from height are one of the biggest causes of workplace fatalities and major injuries. This was a wholly avoidable incident that led to the death of a young man.

My thoughts are with Renols family and friends.”

This prosecution was brought by HSE Enforcement Lawyer Arfaq Nabi and Senior Paralegal Manager 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 are available.
4. Relevant guidance can be found here: Work at height – 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 fractured their hip after falling from a large plastic pallet box while disposing of food waste into a skip 

– The company failed to carry out a suitable risk assessment for loading skips and did not provide appropriate equipment for safe working at height 

– HSE guidance is available 

A Bolton bakery company has been fined £16,667 after an employee fractured their hip falling from a large plastic pallet box while working at height. 

The incident occurred on 15 April 2024 at Greenhalgh’s Craft Bakery Limited’s site in Lostock, Bolton. The employee had been standing on a pallet box to dispose of food waste into the top of a skip when they fell.  

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that Greenhalgh’s Craft Bakery Limited had failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment for loading skips and had not provided appropriate equipment to ensure safe access. The investigation also found that inadequate supervision and monitoring had allowed unsafe working at height practices to become commonplace. 

Greenhalgh’s Craft Bakery Limited, of Crescent Road, Bolton, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £16,667 and ordered to pay costs of £4,333.66, plus a victim surcharge of £2,000, at Tameside Magistrates’ Court on 13 March 2026. 

Working at height remains one of the leading causes of workplace injury and death. HSE guidance on working at height explains how to plan and carry out work at height safely, including the importance of selecting appropriate equipment and ensuring suitable supervision. 

HSE Inspector Leanne Ratcliffe said: “Every employer has a duty to conduct a risk assessment. Employers should identify work-at-height activities and ensure that safe access is available and used. They should also ensure systems are in place for supervision and monitoring so that unsafe practices are identified and prevented.” 

This prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Arfaq Nabi and paralegal officer Hannah Snelling. 

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 Managing risks and risk assessment at work: Overview – 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.   

– Demolition work at a Staffordshire site was halted after asbestos was discovered

– An unlicensed company and individual were appointed to manage the clear-up instead of a licensed contractor

– HSE investigation found that the demolition was not properly planned or managed

Two Midlands companies and a site manager have been sentenced after a largescale asbestos disturbance and illegal clearance operation was carried out at a Cannock demolition site, putting workers and members of the public at risk of exposure to the deadly carcinogen.

Following concerns about unsafe demolition work, an HSE inspector visited a site at Greenheath Road, Cannock on 7 September 2023. The inspector found that demolition had been halted after asbestos was discovered on site. A subsequent refurbishment and demolition asbestos survey identified 218m² of asbestos-containing materials and debris.

The investigation established that Sohan Group Limited, the client for the project, had commissioned an asbestos management survey before work began, which identified some asbestos-containing materials within the building. This survey was shared with the demolition contractor, Maize Metals Limited, who nonetheless proceeded with the demolition work despite being aware of the asbestos present.

Sohan Group Limited had not appointed a principal contractor to manage the construction project, as required under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. Following the refurbishment and demolition survey, the company obtained a quote for removal by a licensed asbestos removal contractor but instead appointed Disa Properties Limited, represented by Ali Raza Baig, to carry out the asbestos clear-up. Neither the company nor Mr Baig held the necessary licence or competence to work with asbestos. Mr Baig failed to engage a licensed contractor and failed to ensure appropriate measures were in place to prevent exposure to, and spread of, harmful asbestos fibres.

HSE guidance on managing and working with asbestos states that, under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, employers must commission a refurbishment and demolition asbestos survey before starting any work likely to disturb the fabric of a building constructed before 2000. Any asbestos-containing materials identified must either be left undisturbed or removed by a competent, and in many cases HSE-licensed, contractor under controlled conditions.

At Birmingham Magistrates’ Court on 6 March 2026:

– Sohan Group Limited, of Sneyd Lane, Essington, Wolverhampton WV11 2DU, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(4) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 and was fined £74,900 and ordered to pay costs of £3,658.14 and a statutory surcharge of £2,000.

– Maize Metals Limited, of Pikehelve Street, Hill Top, West Bromwich B70 0TU, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 15(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 and was fined £13,400 and ordered to pay costs of £1,359.51 and a statutory surcharge of £2,000.

– Ali Raza Baig, of Alton Close, Amington, Staffordshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 15(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 by virtue of Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. He was sentenced to 26 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, and made subject to an electronically monitored curfew between 19:00 and 07:00 for three months. A director disqualification order was made under Section 2(1) of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 for five years from 6 March 2026. Mr Baig was warned that breach of the order is a criminal offence carrying a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment. He was ordered to pay costs of £5,899 and a statutory surcharge of £154.

HSE Inspector Rob Gidman said: “Asbestos is a Class 1 carcinogen which is known to kill around 20 tradespeople each week due to past exposure. By failing to ensure the demolition was properly planned and managed, considering the presence of asbestos on site, these companies and Mr Baig put workers and members of the public at risk of being exposed to a substance known to cause fatal lung disease.

“This case should serve as a reminder to those engaged in demolition and refurbishment work that they have responsibilities when it comes to managing the risks associated with asbestos.”

See HSE’s campaign “Asbestos and You” and download the free Quick Guide for trades for common examples of asbestos, where you may find it and what to do when you come across it.

This prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer, Gemma Zakrzewski, paralegal officer, Stephen Grabe and enforcement advocate, Tom Ledden-Rocks. 

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: Asbestos – HSE
5. HSE’s has two campaigns “Asbestos and You” and “Asbestos Your Duty” reminding tradespeople about the dangers of asbestos and the importance of working safely with it, also to reach those responsible for the maintenance and repair of non-domestic buildings.
6. 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.

– Carl Parsons, 34, was killed and Luke Madavan was seriously injured when a cherry picker struck an 11,000-volt overhead powerline

– Two companies have been fined following the death of Carl Parsons and life-changing injuries to a colleague at a Devon biogas site.

– HSE investigation found that Willand O&M had been advised to relocate the overhead powerline nine months before the incident but failed to act

Two companies have been fined after an employee was killed and a colleague left with life-altering injuries when a cherrypicker collided with an overhead powerline.

Willand O&M Ltd and New Wave Marine Ltd were sentenced at Exeter Crown Court on 3 March 2026 following an incident on 1 June 2020 at the Willand Biogas site, Hide Market Road, Cullompton, in Devon. Carl Parsons, 34, was electrocuted and colleague Luke Madavan, AGE, was left with life-changing injuries

Described by his family as funny, loving, kind and a fantastic father, Carl Parsons was a loving husband, son, brother and uncle, well-loved by everyone who knew him. He left behind a wife and three children.

The court heard that New Wave Marine had been contracted by Willand O&M to lift the lid of a biodigester and stir a crust blockage that had accumulated inside the tank. During this work, a cherry picker operated by New Wave Marine struck an overhead powerline. The electrical current passed through the metal basket, fatally electrocuting Carl Parsons and causing a serious electric shock to Luke Madavan.

An HSE investigation found that Willand O&M had been advised by their principal contractor and Western Power Distribution to relocate the overhead powerline. Doing so would have eliminated the risk of contact during both the build and foreseeable future maintenance. Willand O&M failed to act on this advice and put no adequate control measures in place, such as height restrictors on cherry pickers or restricted work areas. Supervision, monitoring and site induction were also found to be poor.

New Wave Marine’s risk assessment was found to be neither suitable nor sufficient. The company also lacked formal training provision and adequate supervision for the work being carried out.

HSE has guidance on working safely near overhead electricity power lines and recognised industry guidance is also available via Look Out Look Up. The guidance advises to plan and manage work near electric overhead power lines so that risks from accidental contact or close proximity to the lines are adequately controlled.

Willand O&M Ltd of Cleave Farm, Station Road, Willand, Cullompton, Devon, pleaded guilty to an offence under Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 by virtue of Regulation 14, having failed to ensure that persons carrying out work at the site were not working on or near a live conductor without reasonable and suitable precautions in place to prevent injury. The company was fined £51,000 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £28,467.

New Wave Marine Ltd pleaded guilty to offences under Regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. The company was fined £30,000 with prosecution costs of £8,000.

HSE Inspector Nicole Buchanan said: “Working underneath overhead powerlines is inherently unsafe and these risks should be eliminated wherever possible. There is a risk that workers operating equipment could either make direct contact with the electrical source or be exposed to electricity arcing over several metres and travelling through the basket. The electricity network will provide guidance and assist in moving lines or burying them underground to prevent incidents. Companies should always seek competent health and safety advice and ensure their staff are adequately trained.

“The death of Mr Carl Parsons and the injuries to Mr Madavan were entirely avoidable and I hope that this case will serve as a lesson to others who try to avoid costs by working near overhead powerlines. I express my deepest sympathy to those who witnessed the incident, to Carl’s family, his wife, and especially to his three children, and to Mr Madavan; and I thank them for their cooperation throughout the investigation.”

The prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Alan Hughes, HSE advocate Sam Jones, and paralegal Helen Jacobs.

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  Overhead power lines – 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.

• Seven employees reported with vibration-related conditions including nerve damage and finger blanching
• Workers described daily life impacts including numbness at night and inability to grip
• Company failed to risk assess vibration exposure or provide health surveillance and training

A metal fabrication company based at Immingham Docks in North East Lincolnshire has been sentenced after pleading guilty to exposing multiple employees to vibration risks at work.

HSE became aware in June 2024 of three reports of vibration-related illness among employees of Drury Engineering Services Ltd. An investigation was opened and an Improvement Notice served on the company to control the ongoing risk.

The notice was served because the company had failed to reduce employees’ vibration exposure to as low a level as reasonably practicable through organisational and technical measures.

During the investigation, inspectors identified a further three employees who met the threshold for reporting to HSE due to vibration-related illness. A seventh report was made by the company later that year.

Employees told inspectors the illness was affecting their daily lives. Some experienced finger blanching during simple household tasks such as mowing the lawn. Others were kept awake at night by numbness in their hands, while some described being unable to grip and suffering nerve damage.

Drury Engineering Services Ltd has been operating at Immingham Docks since 2000. A new health and safety manager was appointed in June 2022 and began work to address issues with the company’s vibration management system, but by this point employees had already been significantly exposed to vibration risks.

The investigation found that the company had failed to:

– suitably and sufficiently assess the risks from vibration exposure

– implement organisational and technical measures to reduce vibration exposure to as low a level as reasonably practicable

– place employees who were exposed to significant levels of vibration under a suitable health surveillance system

– provide employees with suitable and sufficient information, instruction and training

HSE provides extensive guidance on the risk of vibration in the workplace and the need to ensure that the risk is properly assessed, and appropriate measures implemented to control exposure from the risk of vibration.

Drury Engineering Services Ltd, of East Riverside, Immingham Dock, Immingham, North East Lincolnshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £44,000 and ordered to pay £8,061.70  in costs at Grimsby Magistrates’ Court on 26 February 2026.

HSE Principal Inspector Chris Tilley said: “Today’s fine should send a clear message that both HSE and the courts take seriously the failure to manage employees’ exposure to vibration.

“HSE will not hesitate to take action against companies that do not do all they should to keep people healthy and safe.”

This prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Matthew Reynolds and paralegal officer Benjamin Stobbart.

Notes to Editors

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people & 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. Guidance on Vibration at Work can be found here: Vibration – 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 in England can be found here and those for Scotland here.

– Nick Hardiman, 54, died after becoming entangled in a lathe while using handheld emery cloth at Somers Forge Limited in Halesowen on 8 December 2023

– HSE found the company failed to prohibit dangerous working practices, prevent access to moving machinery parts, and establish safe operating procedures

– HSE guidance states emery cloth should never be applied directly by hand

A Halesowen forge has been fined £750,000 after an employee sustained fatal injuries when he became entangled in a 20-metre long lathe.

Nick Hardiman was employed by Somers Forge Limited as a machinist at their forge on Prospect Road, Halesowen.

On 8 December 2023, the 54-year-old from Kidderminster was working on a lathe in the machine shop. Whilst using handheld emery cloth to finish a rotating component, Mr Hardiman became entangled in the dangerous moving parts of the lathe, sustaining catastrophic injuries.

Despite the efforts of emergency services, Nick Hardiman sadly died later that evening.

Mr Hardiman leaves behind his partner, Melanie; his siblings Robert, Glenis, Lorraine and David; and his parents Michael and Doreen.

Nick’s siblings Robert, Glenis, Lorraine and David said: “We can’t comprehend how someone can go to work and not come home again. Everyone is absolutely devastated.”

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Somers Forge Limited had failed to:

– prohibit the use of handheld emery cloth on lathes

– prevent access to dangerous moving parts of the lathe

– ensure personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by workers did not create risk of being injured by, or drawn into, the lathe

– undertake a suitable and sufficient risk assessment for the lathe, or establish a safe operating procedure

HSE provides guidance on using emery cloth on metalworking lathes. This guidance establishes that it is never acceptable to apply emery cloth by hand to a rotating component, as there is a risk of the operator becoming entangled or dragged into the danger zone.

Somers Forge Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £750,000 and ordered to pay £38,314 in costs at Walsall Magistrates’ Court on 18 February 2026.

Nick’s partner Melanie said: “Nick had everything to live for – a loving home and a partner who adored him, family and friends, and a fulfilling life ahead of him. We used to have a life; now I just exist.

I will forever miss the sound of his voice, the smell of his aftershave, the feel of his cuddles and kisses, and the times we would spend together.”

Nick’s father Michael said: “We feel very proud when we speak about Nick, but it really hurts to talk. We think about Nick every single day.”

HSE Inspector Sophie Neale said: “This was an entirely preventable incident which has had tragic consequences.

Employers must ensure that safe systems of work are in place and that workers are not exposed to foreseeable risks from dangerous machinery.

My thoughts are with Nick’s family and friends.”

This prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Chloe Ward, 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 are available.

4.    Relevant guidance can be found here Using emery cloth on metalworking lathes – 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.

– Flowchem UK Ltd fined £50,000 after worker suffered chemical burns from corrosive drain un-blocker

– HSE found inadequate training, PPE not routinely worn, and insufficient first aid provisions

– HSE guidance is available

A manufacturer of household cleaning products in Nottingham has been fined after an agency worker suffered burns to her face, eye, neck and arm when she was doused in a corrosive sink and drain un-blocker.

Marzanna Sokolowska was working for Flowchem UK Ltd at its manufacturing site in Nottingham on 2nd November 2023 when she was doused with a significant quantity of corrosive liquid after accidentally opening the wrong valve on a 1,000 litre container.

Ms Sokolowska was working in a team decanting sink and drain un-blocker liquid from bulk containers at shoulder height into smaller containers for sale.

Ms Sokoloska accidentally opened the outlet valve on an adjacent container to the one fitted with a decanting hose, which had no end cap fitted. The liquid sprayed out under considerable force splashing her in the face and upper body.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the system of work employed by Flowchem exposed their employees and agency workers to health and safety risks in the event of leaks or losses of containment.

Training arrangements, including the provision of adequate information to workers with limited understanding of English was inadequate. Whilst some personal protective equipment (PPE) was provided by the company, it was routinely not worn, and there was inadequate supervision or monitoring to ensure the use of PPE.

Whilst eye-wash bottles were provided, the first aid arrangements available did not take account of the potential scale of any exposure, including the lack of a shower for example.

HSE guidance on the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH) states that employers should identify the risks arising from the use of substances hazardous to health and put in place effective measures to prevent exposure and mitigate the consequences of any such exposure. These measures should include consideration of the systems of work under which the dangerous substances are handled, the training and supervision of those engaged in the work and the provision of adequate PPE and first aid arrangements.

Flowchem UK Ltd of Mark Street, Sandiacre, Nottingham NG10 5AD pleaded guilty to breaches of Section 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay £7,247.40 in costs with a victim surcharge of £2000 at Nottingham Magistrates Court on 12 February 2026.

HSE Inspector, Angus Robbins, said: “The systems of work employed by Flowchem unnecessarily exposed workers to risks of injury from exposure to corrosive chemicals. More suitable working methods, including avoidance of decanting large volumes stored at or above head height could have been employed. Following the incident, Flowchem changed their working methods to eliminate these risks.

“Ms Sokolowska suffered very painful injuries and was unable to work for a considerable period. Of particular concern were the burns to her eyelid and eye. Fortunately, she has made a reasonable recovery and been able to return to work.”

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer, Andrew Siddall 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 are available.
4. Relevant guidance can be found here COSHH basics: overview – COSHH
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 lost finger when glove caught in metalworking lathe while using emery cloth

– Company failed to assess risks and ensure safe system of work

– HSE guidance states emery cloth should never be applied directly by hand

A machine manufacturing company in Middleton has been fined after an employee lost their  finger and required amputation  when it became caught in emery cloth used on a metal-working lathe.

On 26 April 2024, an employee was using emery cloth to polish metal work pieces when his glove was drawn into the lathe he was operating.

Following the incident, the employee had a finger on his right hand amputated. He was unable to return to his profession as a turner and was made redundant from Carter Brothers in January 2025.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Carter Brothers failed to adequately assess the risk to employees undertaking polishing of work pieces using emery cloths and failed to ensure a safe system of work.

HSE provides guidance using emery cloth on metalworking lathes . Guidance states that emery cloth should never be applied directly by hand to work rotating in a lathe. Acceptable methods include using the tool post as a clamp or a dedicated holding device, both of which reduce the risk of injury.

Carter Brothers International Limited, of Unit 30 Finlan Road, Stakehill Industrial Estate, Manchester, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £3,758.55 in costs with a victim surcharge of £2000 at Manchester Magistrates’ Court on 9 February 2026.

HSE Inspector Leanne Ratcliffe said:

“This incident not only left the employee with a life-altering injury, but also meant they could not continue working in their chosen profession.

“The risks associated with using emery cloth on metalworking lathes are widely known. The company should have introduced measures to carry out polishing safely and today’s fine reflects their failure to properly follow health and safety guidance

This prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Gemma Zakrzewski and paralegal officer Benjamin Stobbart.

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 Using emery cloth on metalworking lathes and  EIS2: The use of emery cloth on metalworking lathes
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.

• South Kirkby firm fined £24,395 after employee suffered partial severing of two fingers
• Worker was cleaning printing machine when fingers were drawn into unguarded rollers
• HSE investigation found company failed to prevent access to dangerous machinery parts

A wooden cable drum manufacturer based in South Kirkby has been fined £24,395 after an employee’s fingers were severed in a printing machine.

A 57-year-old woman was working for Askern UK Limited at its site in South Kirkby, Pontefract on 8 March 2024 when she was able to raise the guard and easily override an interlock to run the rollers of a machine which prints logos. The employee was cleaning the rollers with a paper towel when her fingers were drawn into the nip point, leaving two of her fingers partially severed.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Askern UK Limited failed to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery, namely the moving rollers of the printing machine. The investigation also found that the company had failed to adequately maintain the machine or provide employees with suitable training for the printer.

HSE guidance states employers must take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. This includes ensuring protection devices, such as interlocks, are not easily bypassed or disabled. Further guidance on the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) is available.

Askern UK Limited, of 28 Lidgate Crescent, Langthwaite Business Park, South Kirkby, Pontefract, WF9 3NR, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £24,395, ordered to pay £5000 in costs and a victim surcharge of £2,000 at Leeds Magistrates’ Court on 4 February 2026.

HSE inspector Shauna Halstead said: “This case demonstrated multiple failures by the company in respect of the printing machine.

“An employee was tasked with cleaning the printer without provision of suitable information, instruction or training, particularly in relation to the safety devices intended to protect them.

“A suitable interlock and employee training would have prevented this incident”

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Samantha Crockett, paralegal officer Benjamin Stobbart, and HSE legal team.

Notes to Editors

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 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.