header-logo header-logo

13 December 2007
Issue: 7300 / Categories: Legal News , Health & safety , Professional negligence
printer mail-detail

Corporate manslaughter fines could force firms out

News

Plans to fine first-time offenders up to 10% of their annual turnover for corporate manslaughter offences could force companies to leave the UK and move their headquarters elsewhere, if enacted, lawyers say.
The Sentencing Advisory Panel has drawn up proposals—currently out for consultation—which would see fines of 2.5%–10% of average annual turnover imposed for an offence of corporate manslaughter. When sentencing for an offence under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 involving death, meanwhile, the fine range would be 1%–7.5% of average annual turnover.

Gerard Forlin, barrister at 2-3 Gray’s Inn Square, says: “This is of fundamental importance to organisations operating in the UK and some may reflect on continuing to have their major headquarters here.”
He says the proposed fines—which would be in line for those imposed for competition offences—cannot rely on a deterrent effect since “some people working in very dangerous environments feel they cannot do much more”.
Forlin believes this could be the final straw which, on top of high taxes, terrorist threats, high workforce costs and more, forces companies to move their UK bases.

However, Jeff Zindani, managing director of Forum Law, argues that the fine range is unlikely to have much of a deterrent effect on companies but “demonstrates yet again the weakness of this legislation”.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll