header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
26 March 2009
Issue: 7362 / Categories: Opinion , Employment
printer mail-detail

Total liable for Buncefield blast

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
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
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
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
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
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
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
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’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll