Case 2303307/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v S Bird (Health and Safety Executive) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303307/2021
- Decision date
- 3 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mr A Greenland, Mr C Mardner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered Ringway Infrastructure Services Limited’s appeal against an improvement notice issued on 16 July 2021 after the fatal incident on Lieutenant Ellis Way on 2 November 2020. The notice alleged a contravention of regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 because the dynamic risk assessment completed by the emergency stand-by operatives failed to include road speed and road type as hazards. The tribunal held that the dynamic risk assessment carried out by the operatives did take account of road speed and type as a matter of fact, but that it did not form part of the employer’s assessment for regulation 3(1) purposes.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Appeal by Ringway Infrastructure Services Limited against an improvement notice issued by the Health and Safety Executive under section 21 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The tribunal cancelled the notice and did not order any modification. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 21 Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
- section 24 Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
- regulation 3(1) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
- regulation 3(6) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
- MWH UK Ltd v Wise
- HM Inspector of Health & Safety v Chevron North Sea Ltd
- Tangerine Confectionary Ltd and Veolia ES (UK) Ltd v R
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.