23 March 2012 / Gerard Forlin

Issue: 7506 / Categories: Features , Health & safety , Regulatory

printer

mail-detail

Too hot to handle?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

istock_000009520036medium_4

The heat is on for organisations & individuals who do not pay heed to fire safety precautions, notes Gerard Forlin QC

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (2005 Order) came into force on 1 October 2006, replacing regulations made under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 (FPA 1971). This order was made pursuant to the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (RRA 2001) to be in compliance with the EU directive on fire safety in the workplace and business premises. There have been a series of recent cases where the fines have been gradually ramping up.

First relevant case?

Arguably, the first relevant case fell under the previous legislation. In R v ESB Hotels Ltd [2005] EWCA Crim 132, [2005] All ER (D) 159 (Jan) owners of a hotel pleaded guilty to two counts of contravening the requirements of a Fire Certificate, contrary to s 4 of FPA 1971. Bed mattresses had been stored in various corridors. Investigators found that the hotel staff did not appear to have a complete

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Too hot to handle?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

istock_000009520036medium_4

The heat is on for organisations & individuals who do not pay heed to fire safety precautions, notes Gerard Forlin QC

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (2005 Order) came into force on 1 October 2006, replacing regulations made under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 (FPA 1971). This order was made pursuant to the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (RRA 2001) to be in compliance with the EU directive on fire safety in the workplace and business premises. There have been a series of recent cases where the fines have been gradually ramping up.

First relevant case?

Arguably, the first relevant case fell under the previous legislation. In R v ESB Hotels Ltd [2005] EWCA Crim 132, [2005] All ER (D) 159 (Jan) owners of a hotel pleaded guilty to two counts of contravening the requirements of a Fire Certificate, contrary to s 4 of FPA 1971. Bed mattresses had been stored in various corridors. Investigators found that the hotel staff did not appear to have a complete

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

NLJ this week: CPR tweak closes third-party disclosure gap

A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing

NLJ this week: Court of Appeals wrestles with Mazur fallout

The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year

NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle

As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR

back-to-top-scroll