Case 2602791/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v R J Dixon One of HM Inspectors of Health and Safety — 2021
- Case reference
- 2602791/2018
- Decision date
- 4 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Blackwell Members
- Venue
- Nottingham
- Panel members
- Mr K Rose, Mr J Purkis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an appeal by G D Precision Engineering Ltd against an Improvement Notice served on 21 November 2018 by HM Inspector of Health and Safety Ms Dixon in relation to the guarding of three first-floor KRV milling machines. The Notice alleged breaches of s.2 HSWA 1974 and regulation 11 of PUWER 1998 and required the Appellant to work through the hierarchy of measures to improve guarding so far as practicable. The tribunal recorded that no inspector had seen the machines in operation, but the HSE had inspected the premises on earlier occasions, received photographs and correspondence, and had seen two videos shown on Mr Dickens' telephone during the 27 September 2018 visit.
The tribunal rejected Mr Dickens' case that the HSE had changed its requirements since 10 May 2017. It found that, despite some inconsistencies in wording across the Notices of Contravention and correspondence, the theme throughout was the same: application of the hierarchy in regulation 11. It also found that Ms Dixon had enough information to serve the Notice and that Mr Dickens had made it clear he would permit no further access, so there was no further investigation that she ought reasonably to have undertaken.
On the central issue of practicability, the tribunal accepted that Mr Dickens was an experienced milling-machine operator and that some circumstances might make fixed guarding impracticable. It nevertheless found that the splash screen and other arrangements shown in the videos did not satisfy regulation 11, and that a fixed guard of the type illustrated by Mr Corbridge, or an interlocked cutter guard, would improve safety and was practicable for the jobs shown. The tribunal concluded that the Appellant had not taken effective measures to prevent access, so far as practicable, to the rotating cutters and that it had jumped too quickly from the first stage of the hierarchy to the second without properly considering what could be done.
The tribunal therefore affirmed the Improvement Notice under s.24 HSWA, but modified it by substituting the compliance date. The original date of 14 December 2018 was replaced with a date 28 days from the date the decision was sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Appeal against an Improvement Notice under s.24 HSWA 1974. The tribunal affirmed the Notice, subject to modification of the compliance date in paragraph 78. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.24 HSWA
- s.21 HSWA
- regulation 11 PUWER 1998
- hierarchy of measures under regulation 11
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.