Claimant v S Glover One of HM’s Inspectors of Health and Safety (Explosives) — 2025

Essex Pyrotechnics Limited brought an appeal against a Health and Safety Improvement Notice dated 14 May 2024. The notice concerned alleged breaches of regulation 26(1)(a) of the Explosives Regulations 2014 and sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, on the basis that the appellant had not taken measures to minimise the risk of fire and explosion caused by lightning strike on buildings containing explosives. The tribunal recorded that the appeal suspended the notice and that the respondent applied to strike it out under rule 38.

The tribunal found that the factual background was not in dispute. It accepted that inspections in October 2023, January 2024 and February 2024 had shown the lightning protection system did not meet the relevant standard, that Rix Electrical’s testing did not cover all magazines and did not show compliance with the 10 ohm requirement in paragraph 35 of the Guidance, and that PTSG later inspected but could not test or certify compliance because the fitted earths did not meet the minimum requirements of BS EN 62305. The estimated cost of the required repair work was £8,012.94 plus VAT.

The appellant argued that Annex D of BS EN 62305 was only in draft or interim form and that the requested improvements exceeded proper regulatory interpretation. The tribunal rejected that argument, holding that the note in Part 3 did not make Annex D draft-only and that the note in paragraph D.1, which says the authority having jurisdiction may give other requirements, did not assist the appellant. It also noted an email from the British Standards Institution confirming that the standard was published on 30 June 2011 and was not published as a draft.

The tribunal concluded that the appellant could not show compliance with either BS EN 62305 or paragraph 35 of the Guidance. It found no evidence that the respondent required BS EN 62305 compliance for the Guidance route, and in any event the appellant’s system did not currently conform to the relevant standards. The appeal was therefore struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success.