Construction giant Amec Group must pay more than £633,000 in fines and costs following the death eight years ago of a steel erector, who was working on a major property development in Manchester.
Amec Group Ltd was the principal contractor for the Spinningfields development, which created a number of apartments and retail units. The firm sub-contracted Shawton Engineering Ltd to create the steel architecture at the site.
On 29 April 2004, steel erector Christopher Heaton, 25, was working at the site for Shawton Engineering. He had been using a chain from a scaffolding platform, which was positioned on a bridge linking two buildings, to adjust a steel beam three storeys above him. One of the supporting brackets gave way and he was struck by a falling steel block and became entangled in the operating chain. The chain continued to fall and Mr Heaton was pulled over the edge of the scaffolding and plunged 22 metres to his death.
One of Mr Heaton’s colleagues tried to prevent him from being pulled over the edge, but was unable to save him. The worker, who wishes to remain anonymous, suffered a head injury and the incident has left a long-term psychological impact on him.
The HSE’s investigation found the work had been poorly planned and the wrong studs had been used to secure the chain. It issued a Prohibition Notice to both firms, ordering the work to stop until a safe system of work had been created.
HSE Principal Inspector for construction Neil Jamieson told SHP that the complex nature of the investigation into the incident had resulted in it taking a number of years for the case to come to court. The HSE was also prevented from starting its investigation until an inquest had been completed, and until the Police had finished its investigation.
He explained the incident could have been avoided if the steelwork had been pre-cambered and the work was properly managed. “This was a major construction site, and the work taking place there should have been properly planned and managed,” said Principal Inspector Jamieson.
“If either Chris’s employer, Shawton Engineering, or the principal contractor on the site, Amec, had acted differently, then his life could have been saved.”
Amec Group Ltd was found guilty of breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974, following a trial at Liverpool Crown Court. On 29 June, it was fined £300,000 and ordered to pay £333,886 towards costs.
Shawton Engineering Ltd, which is now in administration, appeared at the same hearing and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(2)(a) of the same Act. It was fined £1000 with no costs.
In mitigation, Amec said it regretted the incident but felt it had been let down by Shawton Engineering, which, it believed, was a competent sub-contractor.
After the hearing, a spokesperson from Amec said: “We are pleased for all concerned that the case has finally come to a conclusion after so many years. We would like to express our deepest sympathy to Mr Heaton’s family for their loss.”
Shawton Engineering said it had no previous convictions and it complied with the enforcement notice by constructing the remaining steelwork for the bridge on the ground, and then lifting it into place.
The Safety Conversation with SHP (previously the Safety and Health Podcast) aims to bring you the latest news, insights and legislation updates in the form of interviews, discussions and panel debates from leading figures within the profession.
Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Google Podcasts, subscribe and join the conversation today!
Hang on a minute! What does “ordered to pay £333,886 towards costs” mean? What’s the tax-payer’s bill for the costs that the (multi-national company) guilty party didn’t pay? Had the prosecution forget after 8 years, that someone died there?
Shawton now liquidated – how much is the cost to the taxpayer for the state benefits to the ex employees (technically also victims of the crime)? – And I wonder what is the name of the new (phoenix) company? Questions, questions but never answers!
An out right liberty, the costs which are insurable come to more than the fine.
These big companies should be called shared holders, not stake holders?
The disparity of fines for SME and huge mutinationals with hundreds of safety reps and H&S Directors of this and that is all too evident in rerpeated cases against such companies. They are deemed to be competent if not overly so, they have a huge resorce pool, yet still manage to get it wrong, and not by mistake.
Ray, I feel I have to disagree with you on this point.
AMEC are Consultant Engineers, they if any body should be able to assertain the credibility of a SSoW. This was after all and engineering failure, poor design and poor methodology?
If the person reviewing the SSOW is not competent? this raises further issue under CDM requirement. Why review anything if not competent. Waste of time and resiource.
Who put such a person in that situation to begin with? etc. etc.
I have lost jobs for not signing off something that I had neither read or approved.
I too have worked on large Civil Eng projects, and have declined work on safety grounds.
I once sent 40 chaps home because this company had not gained approval for a SSoW when working for NWR. I was castigated by them but not by NWR?
And as an HSE inspector I stopped work on some big projects that raised eyebrows, as those above me were unaware of the risk involved, but never once was I proven wrong.
Hopefully the victm’s next of kin lodged a civil claim which was suspended during criminal action. That way Employer’s Liability Insurance will have kicked in so will be active despite company going into administration. That is exactly why it is there! No win No Fee types should go for this?
Why wasn’t the original plan to construct the steelwork on the ground and then lift it into place?
Surely the Principal Contractor saw the method statement
Eight years to come to court – staggering!
Shawton Engineering now in adminstration – there’s a surprise!
£633,000 in fines and cost – peanuts to a company the size of Amec!
Jonathan, unless the person reviewing the method statement understood of the type of work and methodology, they may not have fully appreciated the inherent risks. One of the problems with construction project work is the sheer volume of paper work which needs to be reviewed and approved to get anything done. Hence something can easily slip through the net.
Bob, I speak from experience having worked for one of the largest construction/civil engineering companies in the UK. It was my task to review and approve most SSoW, however when I was not available (leave, meetings, etc) someone else would review and approve method statements.
In the course of a week it could be several dozen which needed reviewing, including a typical Friday afternoon scenario “can you review and sign this before you go home” type mentality – errors will occur.
So the goverment has made another £633.000, the legal team have been paidb their huge saleries, the case has taken 8 years for a verdict, which itself speaks volumes for the UK legal/law system. The victims families have been through hell and back, and what have they goy out of this, NOTHING, all they can do now is take out a civil claim against the company , which will cost them thousands, will again take maybe years.
I hate this country now and what it has become