Case 4107405/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v G McEvoy, HM Inspector of Health and Safety — 2025
- Case reference
- 4107405/2024
- Decision date
- 18 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an appeal by Harper UK (Aberdeen) Ltd against a Prohibition Notice issued by HM Inspector of Health and Safety under section 24 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The judgment records that the matter was determined by consent before Employment Judge J M Hendry on 4 June 2025.
By consent, the tribunal affirmed Prohibition Notice PN GMCE/221024/01 dated 22 October 2024. The order records a deletion from the notice of the words 'and not positioned within the first 90º of rotation from the operator’s position' where they appeared in the section describing the matters giving rise to the stated risks. No monetary award or costs order is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Appeal against a Prohibition Notice under section 24 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. By consent, the tribunal affirmed Prohibition Notice PN GMCE/221024/01 dated 22 October 2024, subject to deletion from the notice of the words 'and not positioned within the first 90º of rotation from the operator’s position.' | Settled | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 24 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.