header-logo header-logo

25 February 2011
Issue: 7454 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Death knell for companies?

High fines anticipated for corporate manslaughter after first conviction

A company convicted of corporate manslaughter has been fi neda 116 per cent of its annual turnover. Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd (CGH) was fi ned £385,000 last week at Winchester Crown Court, after becoming the first to be convicted of the new off ence under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.

A geologist working for CGH died in 2008 when a trench he was working in collapsed. Th e company was found to have breached health and safety legislation and ignored industry guidance. The company director, Peter Eaton, was previously charged with gross negligence manslaughter and a health and safety off ence, but was ruled too unwell to stand trial.

Gerard Forlin QC, of 2-3 Gray’s Inn Square, who specialises in health and safety law, says: “This company had a turnover in 2008 of £333,000 and was fined 116% of that. It was given a relatively long time to pay—ten years with £38,500 due each year. “I think companies are going to sit up and listen, as fines potentially have to be paid within 28 days according to the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) guidance. In the context of its turnover, this is a high fine. If a fi ne of 116% were made against an oil company, large supermarket chain, bank or manufacturer then you can imagine the impact.

“However, each case willturn on its own facts and on the company’s ability to pay. I don’t think the court was sending out any particular message with this. It must be recalled that the SGC guidance set out the principles in any event.

“However, this case may well put the wind in the sails of the CPS and lead now to more prosecutions of larger organisations for corporate manslaughter.”

 Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP partner, Helen Devery says: “Although the fine is less than the starting point of £500,000 recommended by the SGC it will no doubt have a dramatic impact on a company of this size, refl ecting the trend towards harsher penalties.”

For more on this story see www.healthandsafetyatwork.com

Issue: 7454 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll