Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/235

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

24^th November, 2000

 

Before:  Sir Philip Bailhache, Bailiff, and

               Jurats Quérée and Bullen.

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Camerons Limited;

G.H. Limited.

 

 

Camerons Limited

 

1 count of: failing as an employer to implement a safe system of work, thereby failing to conduct its undertaking so as to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that a person not in its employment was not exposed to risks to his health or safety, contrary to Article 21(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989.

 

Plea:   facts admitted.

 

Details of Offence (both defendant companies):

 

Camerons Limited were main contractors on a large construction site in Grouville.  G.H. Limited supplied carpenters to erect shuttering for concrete work.  An employee of Camerons Limited and an employee of G.H. Limited, Mr Law (the victim), were standing on the top of a wall in adverse weather conditions and unprotected by appropriate scaffolding.  Mr Law fell a distance of approximately 9 ft. 1 in. and sustained head injuries.  During the course of subsequent investigations, it was discovered that G.H. Limited did not hold appropriate insurance in respect of its employees.  The Camerons' operative who was overseeing the work was relatively inexperienced for his position.

 

Details of Mitigation  (both defendant companies):

 

Neither company had any previous convictions.  The accident happened on a Friday afternoon in bad weather conditions when appropriate scaffolding had been ordered and was due to be erected the following Monday morning.  It was not known by Camerons why the two workmen had decided to undertake the work which led to the accident prior to the arrival of the scaffolding, but accepted full responsibility.  The lapse in Employers' Liability insurance was an oversight by G.H. Limited.  Since the accident, appropriate insurance had been put in place by G.H. Limited and Camerons had been in close consultation with the Health and Safety Inspectorate to extensively review safety procedures and training.

 

Previous Convictions:   None.

 

Conclusions:   £10,000 fine; £2,000 costs.

 

 

G.H. Limited

 

1 count of: failing as an employer to insure and maintain insurance against liability for bodily injury or disease sustained by one of its employees arising out of their employment, contrary to Article 2(1) of the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1973, as amended.

 

Plea:   facts admitted.

 

Previous Convictions:   None.

 

Conclusions:   £1,500 fine; £350 costs.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court (both defendant companies):   Conclusions granted.

 

G.H. Limited: insurance had lapsed for seven months at the time of the accident and may have continued longer had the accident not occurred.  Conclusions granted, payable at the rate of £200 per month.  It was clear that Camerons took safety issues very seriously and had an excellent safety record, but the regulations must be complied with.  Court could not distinguish this case from A.G. -v- Stansell QVC Limited (15^th October, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

 

Mrs. S. Sharpe, Crown Advocate.

Advocate J.C. Gollop for Camerons Limited.

Advocate A.D. Hoy for G.H. Limited.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

 

1.            Dealing first with the infraction by G.H. Limited of the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1973, it was put to us by counsel that the failure to obtain or to renew insurance was an oversight.  We entirely accept this but it was an oversight which continued for seven months and might well have continued even longer had the accident which took place not occurred.

 

2.            We think that the Crown Advocate has taken the correct approach to the conclusions and G.H. Limited is accordingly fined £1,500 and ordered to pay £350 in costs.  That fine and costs may be paid, as requested, at the rate of £200 per month.

 

3.            We have also given careful consideration to all the matters put before us by Mr Gollop on behalf of Camerons Limited.  The defendant company is clearly a company which takes issues of safety very seriously and has an excellent safety record that has continued for many years.  On the other side of the coin, the Court must punish breaches of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989 because it is clearly in the interests of other employees and indeed employees of the defendant company itself that the regulations should be complied with.

 

4.            The Court has considered very carefully all the submissions made by counsel but finds the case, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from A.G. -v- Stansell QVC Ltd. (15^th October, 1999) Jersey Unreported.  We think the conclusions are accordingly correct and the company is fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £2,000 by way of costs.  The company may have two weeks in which to pay.

Authorities

 

 

Wilkinson's Road Traffic Law: 5.227.

 

Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989: Article 5(1); 21(1)(a).

 

Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1973: Article 2(1).

 

A.G. -v- Jersey New Waterworks Co Ltd (28^th November, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G. -v- Mann (20^th October, 1997) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G. -v- Stansell QVC Ltd (15^th October, 1999) Jersey Unreported.

 

A.G. -v- Gaughran (12^th December, 1997) Jersey Unreported.