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
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
NLJ this week: Volunteers, promotions & perilous appeals
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
NLJ this week: When saying no to mediation pays
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll