Case 4108935/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Hse — 2021
- Case reference
- 4108935/2021
- Decision date
- 13 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Donnell Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- L Brown, N Bakshi
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an appeal against five improvement notices and three prohibition notices served after an HSE inspection at the George Court site in Irvine, where a new Gurdwara was being built by volunteers. At the start of the hearing, the respondent did not seek to uphold the first four improvement notices, and those notices were cancelled by consent. The tribunal found that the work at the site was voluntary Seva and was not "work" within section 52 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, but it rejected the argument that that definition controlled the meaning of "work" in the regulations relied on by HSE; where the relevant terms were undefined, the tribunal used their ordinary meaning, which could include voluntary work.
On the remaining improvement notice, the tribunal held that the appellant was a "contractor" for CDM purposes because he carried out construction work in the course of an undertaking to build the Gurdwara. It found that the George Court site was a construction site and that the work fell within the broad definition of construction work in regulation 2(1) CDM. The notice alleging breach of regulation 15(2) CDM was therefore affirmed without modification.
For the first prohibition notice, concerning the telehandler and damaged or missing visibility aids, the tribunal held that the appellant had sufficient control when he participated in the site decision-making group to fall within regulation 3(3)(b) of the Equipment Regulations. It accepted the inspectors' evidence that the condition of the telehandler created a risk of collision, and affirmed the notice. For the other two prohibition notices, the tribunal deleted the references to the 1974 Act because the site work was not "work" for section 52 purposes, and modified each notice so that the duties applied only to the extent of the appellant's control. It still found a risk of serious personal injury from the use of the man-riding cage to reach upper levels and from the inadequate edge protection and voids at the roof and upper floors.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | By consent, the first four improvement notices were cancelled at the hearing. | Settled | — | — |
| Other | Improvement Notice IJC/1 9032021/5 was affirmed without modification; the tribunal held that the appellant was a contractor for CDM purposes and that regulation 15(2) applied. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The telehandler prohibition notice was affirmed; the tribunal held that the appellant had sufficient control to fall within the Equipment Regulations and that the damaged and missing visibility aids created a risk of collision. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The man-riding cage prohibition notice was affirmed with modifications; the reference to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 was deleted and the wording was limited to the extent of the appellant's control. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The fall-risk prohibition notice was affirmed with modification; the wording was limited to the extent of the appellant's control and the notice was framed around voids and inadequate edge protection. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- HM Inspector of Health & Safety v Chevron North Sea Ltd
- section 24 Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
- section 52 Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
- regulation 3(3) Work Equipment Regulations 1998
- regulation 3(3) Work at Height Regulations 2005
- regulation 15(2) Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015
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.