• 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.

An East Yorkshire company has been fined more than half a million pounds after an employee’s lower arm was severed when it became entangled in a conveyor.

Bartosz Gaj, a blender operative, had been attempting to clear a blockage at AB Agri Limited’s premises in Fridaythorpe, Driffield on 3 November 2021.

Mr Gaj’s hand was drawn into the conveyor mechanism, severing the 34-year-old’s right arm below the elbow. He had only been working at the company for a few months at the time of the incident. As a result of his life-changing injury, Mr Gaj was unable to return to work for more than two years. He has had to adapt all aspects of his daily life.

The conveyor had been installed a few months before the incident and was prone to blockages which needed to be cleared by pulling out a manual slide plate, removing the accumulated material and resetting a cut-off switch.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that operatives routinely cleared blockages themselves if they could be done quickly, even though they had not been adequately trained in isolation procedures. There had been no review of the risk assessment for operating the conveyor, when the new conveyor was installed.

The investigation also found that there was no system for checking that guards and safety features were in place prior to using the conveyor.

HSE guidance states that effective measures should be taken to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery.  In addition, machinery should be isolated before interventions are carried out.  Employees should be adequately trained in isolation procedures. Further guidance is available on the HSE website.

AB Agri Limited of Weston Centre, Grosvenor Street, London pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £566,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,410 at Hull Magistrates’ Court on 5 March 2025.

HSE inspector Sally Gay said: “The life changing injury Mr Gaj suffered could so easily have been avoided by properly assessing the risks, and applying the correct control measures and safe working practices.

“Companies should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards.”

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Jayne Wilson and paralegal officer Lucy Gallagher.

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 can be found here.