Homebase Ltd v Dean Harry Baker (one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Health and Safety): 1601141/2015
| Judgment Date | 10 December 2018 |
| Date | 10 December 2018 |
| Citation | 1601141/2015 |
| Published date | 21 December 2018 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Health & Safety |
Case No: 1601141/2015
---1---
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Appellant Respondent
HOMEBASE LIMITED
AND
DEAN HARRY BAKER (ONE OF
HER MAJESTY’S INSPECTORS
OF HEALTH AND SAFETY)
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
HELD AT: CARDIFF
ON:
25TH / 26TH/ 27TH /28TH JUNE 2018
EMPLOYMENT JUDGE MR P CADNEY
MEMBERS:
MR P BRADNEY
MS C LOVELL
APPEARANCES:-
FOR THE CLAIMANT:-
MR S ANTROBUS QC (COUNSEL)
FOR THE RESPONDENT:-
MR C ADJEI (COUNSEL)
JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the tribunal is that:-
1. Pursuant to s 24(2) Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 the Prohibition Notice
P200815DHB2 issued on 20th August 2015 is hereby cancelled.
Case No: 1601141/2015
---2---
Reasons
1. This is the decision of the tribunal in the case of Homebase Limited (the appellant,
referred to in the papers either as Homebase or Home Retail Group (HRG)) v Dean
Harry Baker, one of her Majesty’s Inspectors of Health and Safety (respondent).
Homebase appeal against and seek the cancellation of a Prohibition Notice issued on
20 August 2015. Initially there were two appellants, the other being Survey Roofing
Group Limited, which appealed against both an Improvement Notice and a
Prohibition Notice arising from the same work, but its appeal has subsequently been
withdrawn. As a result we are only concerned with Homebase’s appeal against the
Prohibition Notice.
2. The tribunal has heard evidence from the Inspector Dean Harry Baker on behalf of
the respondent. On behalf the appellant the tribunal read the witness statements Mr
Martin Green, Mr Mark Dowdeswell, Mr Anthony Bryant, and Mr Gary Cunnington,
and has heard evidence from Mr Christopher Church, Mr Anthony Hardwick, Ms
Abigail Miller, Mr Richard Le-Brun and from the appellant’s expert witness Mr A
Maitra.
Background
3. The background to the incident directly in issue before us lies in an incident which
occurred in September 2010, when a fall through a roof occurred at Homebase’s
store in Redditch. That led to an investigation conducted by Elizabeth Thomas (HSE
Inspector) who liaised with Ms Millard on behalf on the appellant. On 3 August 2011
Ms Thomas wrote to Ms Millard at the conclusion of the investigation. We have been
referred in particular to paragraphs numbered one and four in that letter:
1 It was agreed that the Homebase permit to work form should be reviewed and
revised as some questions contained on it were a little vague. The clearer the
questions on the form the better chance Homebase staff have of making a sound
judgement about work that is going on in their store. It was agreed this would be
reviewed and revised.
4 I advised that there should be a system for randomly checking on contractors who
work in your stores to ensure the competence and provenance of people on site is as
you would expect. This will give you an opportunity to seek evidence of training,
review risk assessments method statements provided and ensure safe working
methods are being used. You were able to demonstrate that Homebase Ltd takes
time to ensure they engage only competent contractors but monitoring and reviewing
contractors periodically once they are working for you is a useful way for a client to
ensure the levels of competence and safety are as promised by the contractor.
(Each party invites us to draw different conclusions from the contents of this letter
which we will address later. The respondent relies on paragraph 1 as demonstrating
To continue reading
Request your trial