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
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll