If Facebook Groups are your thing, join ours and let's make it as amazing and friendly as our forums!

Click here for HSfB's Facebook Group Image

Amber Construction Services Ltd v The Health and Safety Executive: 3201454/2019

Post all your law questions in here, whether it's case law, general law, individual Acts or Regulations you are challenged with, we are all here to help.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
HSfB Moderator
HSfB Moderator
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:53 am
Industry Sector: Medical
Location: Ireland
Has thanked: 162 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Amber Construction Services Ltd v The Health and Safety Executive: 3201454/2019

Post by Waterbaby »


Published 5 September 2019
Last updated 27 November 2019
From: HM Courts & Tribunals Service and Employment Tribunal

Decision date: 7 November 2019
Country: England and Wales
Jurisdiction code: Health & Safety

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal- ... 01454-2019

"ultra vires : An act or decision beyond the legal power of the person or institution making it, and thus invalid."
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10 ... 3110549604

User avatar
Anorak Extraordinaire
Anorak Extraordinaire
Posts: 8959
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:50 am
Twitter: @bernicarey
Industry Sector: Consultancy/Training
Occupation: Safety, Health, Environment and Fire Consultant.
Location: The heart of the East Midlands...
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 268 times

Re: Amber Construction Services Ltd v The Health and Safety Executive: 3201454/2019

Post by bernicarey »

So a bit of a jurisdiction Faux Pa by the HSE, in particular Sarah Elizabeth Robinson, the Inspector who issued the notices.

It's a pity that we don't know exactly what the notices were in respect of; it appears that the legal argument was in regards to the property being residential, not a workplace.
By way of background, the Appellant was tasked to remove cladding from a tall residential property, Following the Notices, it sought expert advice that related to whether the works it was undertaking could include residential property where residents were at fire risk. The point of this is that if residents were involved and it was not just a place of work, pursuant to the applicable regulations, the relevant fire authority would have jurisdiction over the fire safety of the works and not the Respondent.
So although it was a 'place of work' because the company were working there removing cladding, because the fire risk was to the residents and somehow not the 'workers' then it was a FRS responsibility, not HSE. .scratch
Talk about splitting hairs.
I get a feeling that it was the specific wording of the Notices that is the issue here, because the 'workers' must've been at some risk too.
I recon the Notices must've detailed a risk to the residents from the activities being undertaken, and because it was their residences it was a FRS issue.

Tomorrow - your reward for being safe today...

Post Reply


HSfB Facebook Group Follow us on Twitter Find us on Facebook Find us on on LinkedIn

Terms of Use Privacy Policy