Logistics firm fined for multiple failings leading to asbestos exposure
Logistics company Eddie Stobart has been fined £133,000, after a series of failures which took place whilst excavation work was carried out, exposing its staff to asbestos.
Logistics company, Eddie Stobart has been fined £133,000, after a series of failures which took place whilst excavation work was carried out, exposing its staff to asbestos.
Manchester Magistrates Court heard that in 2018, work at the Widnes site was earmarked for the storage of empty containers. The ground had become damaged by heavy lift loaders used to move containers, so it was decided to scrape away the top layer to reach an older surface below. The remnants of old buildings containing asbestos were present in that surface material. It is reported that several workers complained about the dust created by these processes and what it may contain.
An investigation by the HSE found that no risk assessments or asbestos surveys had been carried prior to the commencement of the work. A survey was not carried out until many months later which did find the presence of ACM. The company then failed to report the incident under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 within the 10-day timeframe required.
The company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5 of The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and Regulation 11(1) of The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. They were fined £133,000 and ordered to pay costs of £9,260.
Asbestos was a commonly used material for many years and therefore it is fundamental prior to any building/construction work, for employers to carry out an asbestos survey; the assumption being that asbestos is present unless proven otherwise. This is the step that should have been taken in this case following a risk assessment, bearing in mind the history and size of site and, subsequently the concerns raised by the workers; whose legitimate concerns at that stage may have been too late.
There is a duty amongst all employers to manage asbestos in all areas of their work and if in doubt, get a survey. This case will act as a reminder to employers in all sectors to undertake due diligence and ensure they are complying with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
When roads diverge regulating autonomous vehicles: EU v UK approaches
Legal Update - Food and drink regulatory update
Food for Thought: Food and drink regulatory update: Winter 2024
Legal Update
How the new junk food regulations will reshape Christmas advertising
Legal Update
DEFRA provides clarity around the GB wide 'Not for EU' labelling obligations
Legal Update
How the Regulatory Innovation Office could stir up the food and drink sector
Legal Update
Martyn’s Law: Paving the way for enhanced security measures across UK venues and events
Legal Update
Navigating the new 'Failure to Prevent Fraud' Offence: What organisations need to know
Legal Update
UK consumer law: What is changing and how might it affect retailers?
Legal Update
Martyn's Law: A closer look at the UK's new proposed anti-terror measures
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises leading technology-driven compliance specialist on its continued market consolidation with two further acquisitions
Legal Update - Maternity services
MNSI annual report 2023/24: Key insights and future ambitions for maternity safety
Legal Update
Reform of Gambling Regulation in Ireland
Legal Update
The EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA)
Published Article - DORA
Digital Operational Resilience Act: Key considerations ahead of the 17 January 2025 compliance deadline
Legal Update - Building Safety Act
The Building Safety Act 2022: Managing risks for private equity investors and acquirers
Legal Update
Balancing acts: Navigating the complex risks in adult social care provision
Legal Update
Starling: Paying the price for failures in financial crime systems and controls
Legal Update
The future of food waste management in the UK: A guide for businesses
Legal Update
Navigating new advertising restrictions on junk food
Legal Update
Motor finance complaints on hold: Why now is the time for strategic action
Opinion
Forced labour goods: a landmark decision
Opinion
What does the right to switch off mean for employers?
Published Article - Consumer Duty
General insurance claims: The consumer duty’s easy target? (part 2: ‘a history of warnings’)
Opinion
New hope for the manufacturing sector?
Guide
EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act: Guide for your business
Legal Update
Digital Services Act: What has enforcement been like for the DSA so far?
Legal Update
Navigating Oil Price Cap legislation: LMA issues revised Cargo and Hull wordings
Legal Update
Martyn’s Law and what it means for events venues and university campuses
Legal Update
Is your cyber resilience shored up?
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Bids from overseas supplier under the Procurement Act 2024
Opinion
New proactive duty to prevent sexual harassment: is your organisation ready?
Legal Update
Tobacco and snus use – are insurers asking the right questions?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson appointed as legal adviser to major housing and care provider Sanctuary
Legal Update - Building Safety Act
Case update: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Homes and Communities v Grey GR Limited Partnership
Legal Update
How local authorities can deal with unlawful encampments
Press Release
Browne Jacobson to lead discussions on the future of real estate and infrastructure at this year’s UKREiiF 2024 event
Legal Update
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 – impact of changes implemented on 4 March 2024
Published Article
English Commercial Court rules against Russian exclusive jurisdiction clauses
Legal Update
The Baltimore bridge collapse: One of the biggest losses in maritime insurance history?
