Indespension Limited v Northampton Borough Council — 2020

On 23 June 2020 Employment Judge Hyams heard three joined appeals under section 24 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 against prohibition notices issued on 10 March 2020 by Northampton Borough Council inspector Karen Young. The notice followed a 27 February 2020 incident at Indespension Limited's Northampton branch in which Barry Goulden sustained a little-finger amputation and other finger lacerations while a colleague used a handheld circular saw to cut wood on stacked pallets serving as a temporary work platform. The notice stated that the working practices created a risk of serious personal injury and identified alleged contraventions of section 2(2)(a) HSWA 1974 and regulation 4 of PUWER 1998.

By consent, the appeals of Mr Griffiths and Mr Wilcock were allowed and the prohibition notices against them were cancelled. The tribunal therefore went on to determine only Indespension Limited's appeal. The company accepted that the activity which led to the injury had been carried on unsafely, but argued that after the incident it had undertaken to stop any work involving circular saws, so the activity was not likely to be carried on in future and the prohibition notice should be cancelled. It also submitted that the notice lacked precision and clarity.

The tribunal reviewed section 22 and section 24(2) of HASAWA 1974 and discussed HM Inspector of Health and Safety v Chevron North Sea Ltd, HM Inspector of Health and Safety v Rotary Yorkshire Ltd, and Railtrack plc v Smallwood. It held that a section 24 appeal is not confined to the material available to the inspector at the time of service and may take account of later evidence relevant to the state of affairs at that time, but the question remained whether the circumstances then existing gave rise to a relevant risk of serious personal injury. On the facts, the later undertakings and instructions did not show that the notice had been wrongly issued; the tribunal found that the circumstances that concerned the inspector did in fact give rise to a relevant risk and that the notice was neither unnecessarily nor officiously issued. The appeal of Indespension Limited was dismissed.