Two Firms Fined £183,000 After Asbestos Management Failings

legal updates

Carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment as to whether asbestos is present or liable to be present.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

A food company and their contractor have been fined after asbestos was disturbed during building work and only identified by chance when an employee for an asbestos removal contractor attended site.

Stafford Crown Court heard no asbestos survey had been carried out by the client; Mizkan Euro Ltd. or D H Welton & Co Ltd the contractor and that either company could have commissioned a Refurbishment / Demolition Survey before the work commenced.

Investigations by HSE Inspectors found Mizkan Euro Ltd. were undertaking a project to remove tanks from a factory which required the demolition of an external wall. They failed to provide an Asbestos Survey to enable their contractor DH Welton to quote and plan appropriately for the work to be undertaken. However, it also found DH Welton could have commissioned a survey when they discovered that Mizkan only had access to a management survey for the building.

When the wall was demolished the asbestos insulation board (AIB) at the top of the wall was unknowingly broken up. A skip of demolition debris was found to contain AIB, which had been identified by an asbestos contractor who had been called to site. For the work to be undertaken correctly, a licensed asbestos removal contractor should have been appointed to remove the asbestos under controlled conditions prior to the wall being demolished.

Mizkan Euro Ltd of Chiswick Park, Chiswick High Road, Chiswick, London pleaded guilty to breaching sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA’74) for failing to plan and manage the work carried out under their control without ensuring that risks to health and safety are prevented. It was fined £60,000 for each charge (£120k) and ordered to pay costs of £13,589.

D H Welton & Co Ltd. of Failsworth, Manchester admitted breaching Section 2(1) and 3(1) of the same Act and regulation 5(1)(a) Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 after failing to carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment as to whether asbestos was present or liable to be present during the removal of a wall It was fined £15,000 for each charge (£45k) plus costs of £4,529.

For further information on how to deal with asbestos the HSE has published these guidelines. Lawgistics members can get Health and Safety advice from the legal team.

Impression Communications LtdPutting the motive in automotive

Impression works with businesses across the automotive aftermarket supply chain such as parts suppliers, warehouse distributors, motor factors and independent garages. Covering all aspects of automotive aftermarket marketing, including social media, event management, customer newsletters and PR, Impression is able to quickly establish itself within a client’s business and work towards their objectives.

Ernie TaylorHealth & Safety ConsultantRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Toilet provision in the workplace

It’s hard to imagine this sensible judgment was not a relief for all the employees involved in the use of these toilets.

Can my employees tell me it is too hot to work?

Bosses should make sure they are doing all they can to keep their people cool, especially in areas where machinery might generate extra heat.

Managing Home Workers’ Health and Safety

The guidance published by the HSE about home working has been redesigned and expanded to provide more detail on straightforward actions to manage the homeworkers’ health and safety.

Site Supervisor Fined After Worker Suffered Serious Injuries

Remind your Managers and Site Supervisors about their delegated responsibilities for health and safet

HSE update – Control Of Substances Harmful to Health (COSHH)

COSHH requirements will be particularly relevant for any business running a repairs workshop.

Aiming for excellence – 10 Targets for your own risk assessments

We all recognise and understand that risk assessments are a statutory requirement.

Employer Sentenced After Oil Drum Explodes

Fined £80,000 and ordered to pay costs of £8,167.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.