Mr B Singh v HSE: 4108935/2021
| Judgment Date | 08 October 2021 |
| Date | 08 October 2021 |
| Citation | 4108935/2021 |
| Published date | 22 February 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Health & Safety |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4108935/2021
Hearing Held in Glasgow by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on 23 to 25 August
2021
Employment Judge O’Donnell
Tribunal Member L Brown
Tribunal Member N Bakshi
Mr B Singh Claimant
Represented by:
Mr Singh
HSE Respondent
Represented by:
Mr Olson (Counsel
instructed by
Anderson Strathern)
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that:-
1. By consent, Improvement Notices Serial Numbers IJC/1 9032021/1,
IJC/1 9032021/2, IJC/1 9032021/3 and IJC/1 9032021/4 are cancelled.
2. Improvement Notice Serial number IJC/1 9032021/5 is affirmed.
3. Prohibition Notice Serial Number PN/DOBSB/1 60321/02 is affirmed.
4108935/21 Page 2
4. Prohibition Notice Serial Number PJC/1 603202 1/1 is affirmed with the
following modifications:-
a. The reference to the “Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974 sections
2(1) and 3(1)“ is deleted.
b. The final handwritten section of the Notice which follows the
typewritten word “because” is amended to read as follows:-
You have failed to ensure that the work at height activity you are in control
of is, to the extent of your control, properly planned, appropriately
supervised and, so far as is reasonably practicable, carried out safely.
5. Prohibition Notice Serial Number PN/DO/BSB/1 60321/01 is affirmed with
the following modification:-
a. The final handwritten section of the Notice which follows the
typewritten word “because” is amended to read as follows:-
You have failed to take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far
as is reasonably practicable, and to the extent of your control, a person
falling a distance liable to cause serious personal injury e.g., there are voids
in the floor, gaps in edge protection and unsuitable edge protection (rope
and timber) to prevent the risk of a fall.
REASONS
Introduction
1. The Appellant has brought an appeal against three Prohibition Notices served
on him by the Respondent on 16 March 2021 and five Improvement Notices
served on him by the Respondent by letter dated 19 March 2021.
2. At the outset of the submissions on behalf of the Respondent, counsel for the
Respondent indicated that the Respondent did not seek to uphold the first
four Improvement Notices (Improvement Notice Serial Numbers
IJC/1 9032021/1, IJC/1 903202 1/2, IJC/1 903202 1/3 and IJC/19032021/4).
The Tribunal, therefore, issued a Judgment by consent cancelling these
Notices.
3. The Tribunal was referred to a range of legislation in both the evidence of the
witnesses and submissions and these will be mentioned multiple times in this
Judgment. The Tribunal does not intend to refer to this legislation by their
full titles each time they appear in the Judgment and so it will identify this
legislation as follows:-
a. The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 will be referred to as
“the 1974 Act”.
b. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 will be
referred to as “the Equipment Regulations”.
c. The Work at Height Regulations 2005 will be referred to as “the
Height Regulations”.
d. The Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2015 will be
referred to as “CDM”.
4. The Tribunal will also refer to the Respondent by the abbreviation "HSE”.
Evidence
5. The Tribunal heard evidence from the following witnesses:-
a. The Appellant
b. Jagdeep Singh.
c. James Caren, a Health & Safety Inspector.
d. Duncan Officer, a Health & Safety Inspector.
e. Graeme McMinn, Principal Health & Safety Inspector.
6. There was an agreed bundle of documents prepared by the parties. Certain
documents were added to the bundle in the course of the hearing.
References to page numbers below are references to the pages in the
bundle.
7. This was not a case where there was any real dispute of fact and the Tribunal
did not have to resolve any conflict between the evidence of the various
witnesses in relation to the issues it had to determine.
8. There was no real challenge to the credibility and reliability of the witnesses
from either side. The Tribunal had no reason to doubt that the evidence
To continue reading
Request your trial