header-logo header-logo

26 March 2009
Issue: 7362 / Categories: Opinion , Employment
printer mail-detail

Total liable for Buncefield blast

Company directors warned of consequences of ignoring health & safety obligations

The High Court has sent a warning to company directors on health and safety after finding oil company Total liable for the Buncefield oil depot explosion.

The explosion at the Buncefield oil storage site at Hemel Hempstead in December 2005 is thought to be the biggest ever explosion in peacetime Europe. It was sparked by the overflow of about 300 tonnes of unleaded petrol from a tank on the site’s oil storage facility. The blast measured 2.4 on the Richter scale and could be heard 200m away. It injured 40 people and damaged nearby homes and businesses. Many hundreds of claims were made after the disaster and are thought to amount to more than £750m, the High Court heard.

Total, which owned the site with Chevron, disputed whether or not it was responsible, and argued Hertfordshire Oil Storage, the company which operated the site, was liable.

However, Mr Justice David Steel rejected Total’s claims in the High Court last week, in Colour Quest

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

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll