In this month’s partnership article, Andrew Sanderson and Jessica Solsberg of Fieldfisher’s Health & Safety practice group reflect on the death of demolition operative, Stephen Picken, in the emerging recycling industry and the importance of having carefully curated risk assessments and effective supervision in demolition work.
Credit: HSE.
Stephen Picken and Mark Kumar were considered the “Top Men” in their line of work – specialised in cutting metal with oxy-propane equipment. Both men were working as demolition operatives and on19 October 2019, Picken and Kumar were working for Veolia ES (UK) Ltd (“Veolia”) dismantling an old North Sea gas rig in Great Yarmouth.
The work involved removing skirt pile – an overhanging piece of metal pipework approximately 20ft long, weighing in excess of 27 tonnes – from a the decommissioned rig’s jacket – a structure designed to support oil and gas rig platforms.
The men were cutting the rig when the large piece of metal fell off and struck the cherry picker the men worked from, catapulting the Picken and Kumar to the ground about 12 metres below. Tragically, Stephen Picken died at the scene and Mark Kumar suffered serious life-changing injuries.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (“HSE”) identified serious failings with the planning and risk assessment, which did not adequately cover the planned works. Shortcomings in supervision of the incident were also identified. At the hearing, it was heard that, due to it not being considered high risk, the company did not fully risk assess the skirt pile removal. As a result, there was no cutting plan or safe system of work in place for the demolition works.
Veolia pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (“HSWA”):
“2(1) It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.”
Ipswich Crown Court. Credit: Alamy Stock
At a sentencing hearing at Ipswich Crown Court, on 22 July 2024, Veolia was:
The substantial fine of £3 million reflects the increasing judicial and regulatory emphasis on deterrence and accountability in health and safety breaches, especially where fatalities are involved. The Sentencing Council’s guidelines for health and safety offenses categorise fines based on factors such as the company’s turnover, culpability, and the level of harm caused. For large organisations, fines are often set in the millions where there is a high level of culpability and serious harm or loss of life. In this instance, notwithstanding Veolia were assessed by the sentencing court as falling into the ‘medium culpability’ category, the fine was significant.
Veolia’s failure to implement an appropriate risk and control framework was deemed sufficiently negligent to warrant a substantial fine. The size of the fine reflects the company’s significant turnover, aligning with the Sentencing Council’s approach, which seeks to ensure that penalties are proportionate and serve as an effective deterrent.
The case serves as a vital reminder that employers must have awareness and knowledge of key worker safety laws and regulations in order to consider and implement appropriate internal safeguarding measures. Whilst Veolia was convicted of a sole offence under the HSWA, we consider the various laws and guidance relevant to Veolia’s decommissioning activities in Great Yarmouth.
The HSWA establishes the overarching legal framework for workplace health and safety in the UK. The Act places general duties on employers, employees, and others to ensure a safe working environment. HSWA outlines the fundamental duties of employers to ensure a safe working environment. Veolia’s failure to meet its obligations under the Act, as outlined above, led to this tragic fatal incident.
Regulation 3 of MHSWR 1999 requires employers to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment for the safety of their employees. The company’s risk assessments were found to be inadequate, failing to identify the hazards associated with cutting large structures of metals. Additionally, Regulation 13 requires employers to provide adequate training and supervision, which the investigation revealed was also lacking.
Credit: HSE.
In law, demolition work is treated the same as any other construction work. This means that CDM 2015 applies. This case serves as a reminder that even non-traditional construction settings must adhere to these regulations when undertaking construction-related activities, particularly those involving high-risk tasks like demolition works and working at height.
The Work at Height Regulations 2005 are particularly relevant to this case because the incident involved workers using machinery in circumstances that involved working at height. Even if the specific height was relatively low, the regulations still apply if a fall could result in injury. WAHR 2005 govern all aspects of working at height, from planning and risk assessment to the selection of equipment and ensuring worker competency.
HSE provides guidance which states that demolition, dismantling and structural alteration work must be carefully planned and carried out. Principal designers must plan and manage health and safety in the pre-construction phase (before demolition starts) and principal contractors must plan and manage health and safety during demolition.
Before they start work the employer must provide the contractor with information you have about the structure. This is known as pre-construction information. This pre-information should include details on structural stability of the site and nearby structures within their locations.
Jessica Solsberg at Fieldfisher.
1) Perform sufficient risk assessments
2) Implement training & supervision:
3) Incorporate a safety-first culture:
4) Review internal policies & procedures:
Andrew Sanderson at Fieldfisher.
Regularly review and update safety policies and procedures to ensure compliance with relevant laws and regulations. Engage health and safety experts to stay informed of changes in regulations.
The tragic incident involving Stephen Picken and Mark Kumar serves as a critical reminder that workplace safety is not just a legal obligation but a moral one. As the North Sea hydrocarbons industry matures and the energy transition continues at pace, we will undoubtedly see more offshore deconstruction and decommissioning work being performed. This incident highlights that risk assessments and control frameworks cannot be ignored, especially when they are required to safely demolish what are large, dangerous structures.
Veolia’s £3 million fine is a powerful reminder of the potentially severe consequences for companies that fail to prioritise workplace safety. By having consideration for Health and Safety laws and regulations, businesses can significantly reduce the likelihood of tragic accidents and avoid severe legal and financial repercussions.
