Case 1810444/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Ms Tania Bernice Shiffer, an Inspector of the Health and Safety Executive — 2019
- Case reference
- 1810444/2018
- Decision date
- 2 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buckley
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Ms H Brown, Mr D Eales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Han appealed two prohibition notices served by HSE inspector Ms Shiffer after a visit to her property at 38 Rawdon Road, Horsforth, on 29 August 2018. The tribunal considered the statutory framework under section 22 HSWA 1974, section 24(2), section 82, the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, and had regard to HM Inspector of Health and Safety v Chevron North Sea Limited [2018] UKSC 7. It found Mr Moore's expert evidence independent and accepted the inspector's decision-making on the basis of the material then available.
For prohibition notice PN-TBS-290818-01, the tribunal found there had been a risk, or real possibility, of serious personal injury from work at height during demolition of the dormer window and rear works. It preferred the evidence of Ms Young, supported by photographs, to Ms Han's account that the work had been done safely from inside the property. It held that workers had been standing on planks or otherwise operating at height without adequate edge protection, so the risk of a serious fall was significant.
For prohibition notice PN-TBS-290818-02, the tribunal found that removal of parts of the rear and side wall had left unsupported brickwork and created structural instability, with a risk of collapse. It rejected Ms Han's contention that the remaining timber and plasterboard structure provided adequate support, and treated the later addition of acrow props as consistent with the original condition being unsafe. On control, the tribunal found Ms Han had taken a leading role in the project: she applied for planning permission in her own name, instructed the building control inspector and architect, appointed builders, arranged payments and retained control over the works. It therefore affirmed both notices, and modified notice PN-TBS-290818-02 to specify that part of the external walls to the rear and side had been removed without suitable supports to ensure the structure was not at risk of collapse.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Appeal against prohibition notice PN-TBS-290818-01 under section 22 HSWA 1974; the tribunal affirmed the notice. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Appeal against prohibition notice PN-TBS-290818-02 under section 22 HSWA 1974; the tribunal affirmed the notice and added wording identifying the unsupported external walls removed at the rear and side of the property. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 22 HSWA 1974
- section 24(2) HSWA 1974
- section 82 HSWA 1974
- HM Inspector of Health and Safety v Chevron North Sea Limited [2018] UKSC 7
- Work at Height Regulations 2005
- Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015
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.