ROYAL COURT
(Samedi Division)
20 February 1998
Before: Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff,
and
Jurats de Veulle and Le Brocq
AG
-v-
Ashfield Builders Limited
1 count of contravening Article 21(1) (c) of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989, by contravening Regulation 29(a) of the Construction (Safety Provisions) (Jersey) Regulations, 1970, in that the Defendant Company failed to take all practicable steps to prevent danger to employed persons from fire or explosion through leakage or accumulation of gas whilst they were engaged in the demolition of a building (count 1);
3 counts of contravening Article 21 (1) (a) of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989.
Count 2: by failing to discharge the duty imposed by Article 3 (1) of the said Law of ensuring, as an employer, so far as was reasonably practicable the health and safety of its employees, in that it failed to ensure that the electricity supply to the said building was disconnected before its employees started demolition work.
Count 3: by failing to discharge the duty imposed by Article 3 (1) of the said Law of conducting its undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in its employment who might be affected thereby, were not exposed to risks to their health and safety in that it failed to fence off the external areas of the said property with scaffolding and hoarding during demolition ; and
Count 4: by failing to discharge the duty imposed by Article 5(1) of the said Law of conducting its undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as it is reasonably practicable that persons not in its employment who might be affected thereby. were not exposed to risks to their health and safety; in that it failed to ensure that the gas supply to the said building was disconnected prior to starting demolition work.
Plea: Facts admitted
Details of Offence:
The defendant company were employed to carry out demolition and then construction work on a site at Havre des Pas, St Helier. During the final stages of the demolition of one of the two houses on the site, an employee of the defendant removed a floor board and in so doing, dislodged a support prop which was supporting the remaining section of the first floor of the property. The remaining section at the first floor level collapsed, falling on to the mains electricity meter exposing live main cables. The live mains cable arced onto a gas pipe but the mains fuses at the sub-station did not blow. An engineer from the Jersey Electricity was called to disconnect the mains supply to the premises. (Count 2).
On visiting the site after the above described incident the Health and Safety Officer noted that the wall of the partially demolished house which bordered the public road was unstable and in danger of partial or full collapse. No supporting scaffolding, hoarding or safety barriers to protect members of the public was in place. (Count 3).
The public road was therefore closed, and the defendant then demolished the wall which bordered the public road. During the course of the demolition of this wall a mains gas pipe was fractured and gas escaped which had it been set alight would have resulted in an explosion or fireball which might have injured workmen on the site, or members of the public using the public road. (Counts 1 and 4).
Fortunately the incident of the live mains cable arcing onto the gas pipe did not occur simultaneously with the fracture of the gas pipe.
The risks to workmen from the live electrical cable, and the risks to workmen and members of the public from the escape of gas could have been avoided by the defendant’s requesting the public utility companies to disconnect the electrical and gas supplies to the premises during demolition. The defendant did not make any meaningful enquiries to establish whether or not there was a mains gas supply to the premises. On the morning of the incident, an employee of the Jersey Electricity Company, who had contacted the foreman and asked him to complete a "redundant service works" form in order to disconnect the mains supply, was not present.
Details of Mitigation:
The defendant had placed a wooden box around the electric mains meter. The electrical arcing had occurred at some distance from the location of the subsequent fracture to the gas pipe. The defendant had made some enquiries with the former tenant, and was told there was no gas supply to the premises.
Previous Convictions: None
Conclusions:
Count 1: £3,000 fine
Count 2: £3,000 fine
Count 3: £3,000 fine
Count 4: £3,000 fine
£1,500 costs. (which includes disbursements to Surveyor of £500 ).
Sentence and Observations of the Court:
Count 1: £4,000 fine
Count 2: £4,000 fine
Count 3: £2,000 fine
Count 4: £2,000 fine
£1,500 costs
Bad case of infractions of the Health and Safety Law. Defendant failed in its duty to check with the Gas Company whether or not there was a gas service to the premises before demolition commenced, and that to rely on advice of a former tenant was neither professional, nor sufficient discharge of the heavy duty which rests on a contractor, to ensure the safety of its employees and the public. The gravity of the offences lay in the failure to deal adequately with the potential dangers posed by the mains gas pipe and the live electricity supply.
If the events had taken place after the warnings given by the Court in December 1997 ( see two authorities cited ) the conclusions sought would have been too low. Conclusions varied slightly but no change to total fine or costs.
P Matthews, Esq., Crown Advocate
Advocate AP Begg for the Defendant Company
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF: The Court regards this as a bad case of infractions of the Health and Safety at Work Jersey Law 1989. Paragraph 4 of the Working Safely Guidance Leaflet issued by the Jersey Council for Health and Safety at Work, of which the defendant company acknowledged that it was aware, states very clearly that the duty of a contractor is to obtain plans and drawings of known electrical cables and gas pipes before carrying out any excavation. Paragraph 15 of the same guidance notes was even more explicit and provides that the property to be demolished should be checked by the contractor for the presence of a gas service, either with or without a meter. The contractor should then write to the company giving details of the proposed demolition together with a site plan and any information regarding the presence of a gas service at the site.
To rely upon the advice of a former tenant does not seem to the Court to be a very professional approach and ignores the heavy duty which lies upon a contractor to ensure the safety of its employees and of the public.
The gravity of these offences lies in the failure to deal adequately with the potential dangers posed by the mains gas pipe and the live electrical supply. We take account of the previous good record of the defendant company. However, we are bound to say that had these events taken place after the warnings issued by the Court at the end of last year, we would have thought that the conclusions were too low. We have taken account of the submission of defence counsel that there is an overlap between charges 1 and 4, and we propose, therefore, to vary the conclusions slightly while nevertheless arriving at the same end result.
The Defendant company is therefore fined on charge 1; the sum of £4,000, on charge 2; the sum of £4,000, on charge 3; the sum of £2,000, and on charge 4; the sum of £2,000, making a total of £12,000 and we order the defendant company as requested, by the Crown Advocate, to pay costs in the sum of £1,500.
Authorities
AG -v- JNWW (28 November 1997) Jersey Unreported [1997.214]
AG -v- Newlyn Apartments Ltd (12 December 1997) Jersey Unreported [1997.224]