Case 1600876/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Nemein Limited v Health & Safety Executive (Inspector Julian Charles Tuvey) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600876/2020
- Decision date
- 4 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Mr C Stephenson, Mrs W Morgan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nemein Limited
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a statutory appeal by Nemein Limited against two Prohibition Notices and two Improvement Notices served by a Health and Safety Executive inspector on 20 February 2020. The tribunal held that allegations about former employees, including alleged sabotage and removal of documents, did not provide a basis to cancel the notices. It found that the relevant question was whether the statutory conditions for the notices were met at the material time.
On nickel plating, the tribunal found that although the line was not operating on the inspection day, it could be brought back into use and there was an intention to restart it. The tribunal found inadequate control measures and safe systems of work, including incomplete documentation, lack of COSHH assessments, unsuitable chemical storage, absence of washing facilities, unlabeled tanks, and unresolved issues about safe transfer of chemicals. On anodising, the tribunal found the process was ongoing and that the appellant's own material showed significant further measures were needed, including bunding, extraction, a sink, PPE, waste controls, and improved documentation.
On powder coating, the tribunal found that the appellant had informed the inspectors that the process might be upscaled and that there were no adequate risk assessments or control measures for employee exposure or explosion risk. It accepted the inspector's evidence that powder remained present and that cleanup and decommissioning had not been shown to have been risk assessed. On metal working fluids, the tribunal accepted the inspectors' evidence that exposure was not adequately controlled, particularly because there was no respiratory health surveillance and insufficient measures addressing inhalation and skin exposure. The tribunal affirmed all four notices without modification.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Appeal against Prohibition Notice JHET140220/01 concerning nickel plating. The tribunal affirmed the notice and found a risk of serious personal injury arising from inadequate control measures and safe systems of work for hazardous substances. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Appeal against Prohibition Notice JHET140220/02 concerning anodising. The tribunal affirmed the notice and found the anodising line involved a risk of serious personal injury, with significant control measures and risk assessment steps absent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Appeal against Improvement Notice JHET140220/03 concerning powder coating. The tribunal affirmed the notice and found contraventions of HSWA 1974 s.2(1), COSHH Regulation 7, and DSEAR Regulation 6. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Appeal against Improvement Notice JHET140220/04 concerning metal working fluids. The tribunal affirmed the notice and found contraventions of HSWA 1974 s.2(1) and COSHH Regulation 7, including lack of respiratory health surveillance and inadequate control measures. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.22 HSWA 1974
- s.21 HSWA 1974
- s.24(2) HSWA 1974
- s.2(1) HSWA 1974
- Regulation 7 COSHH Regulations 2002
- Regulation 6 DSEAR 2002
- HMIHS v Chevron North Sea Ltd [2018] UKSC 7
- Railtrack v Smallwood [2001]
- s.40 HSWA 1974
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.