AG v Camerons and G H [2000] JRC 235 (24 November 2000)
- Citation
- [2000] JRC 235
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
More details
- Posture
- Criminal / Sentencing
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that both the failure to maintain compulsory insurance and the breach of health and safety regulations warranted fines, referencing precedent and emphasizing the need for compliance to protect employees.
Court disposition
G. H. Limited fined £1,500 and ordered to pay £350 in costs; Camerons Limited fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £2,000 in costs.
Orders
- G. H. Limited to pay fine and costs at £200 per month.
- Camerons Limited to pay fine and costs within two weeks.
02
Material facts
Parties
G. H. Limited
DefendantCamerons Limited
Defendant Counsel: Mr GollopAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed on G. H. Limited: GBP 1,500
- Costs Imposed on G. H. Limited: GBP 350
- Fine Imposed on Camerons Limited: GBP 10,000
- Costs Imposed on Camerons Limited: GBP 2,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Failure to obtain or renew compulsory employers' liability insurance
- 02
Breach of health and safety regulations at work
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown Advocate argued that the failure to obtain or renew insurance was a significant oversight that persisted for seven months and only came to light due to an accident, warranting a fine.
- Respondent
- Counsel for G. H. Limited submitted that the failure was an oversight. Counsel for Camerons Limited emphasized the company's excellent safety record and seriousness regarding safety issues.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1973: Article 2(1)
Employers must obtain and maintain compulsory liability insurance for employees.
- 02
Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989: Article 5(1); 21(1)(a)
Employers must comply with health and safety regulations to protect employees.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that both the failure to maintain compulsory insurance and the breach of health and safety regulations warranted fines, referencing precedent and emphasizing the need for compliance to protect employees.
Obiter and limits
- The oversight in renewing insurance might have continued even longer had the accident not occurred.
- Camerons Limited has an excellent safety record and takes safety issues seriously, but breaches must still be punished to ensure compliance.
Court disposition
G. H. Limited fined £1,500 and ordered to pay £350 in costs; Camerons Limited fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £2,000 in costs.
- G. H. Limited to pay fine and costs at £200 per month.
- Camerons Limited to pay fine and costs within two weeks.
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. Dealing first with the infraction by G. H. Limited of the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1973 , it was put to us by counsel that the failure to obtain or to renew insurance was an oversight. We entirely accept this but it was an oversight which continued for seven months and might well have continued even longer had the accident which took place not occurred.
2. We think that the Crown Advocate has taken the correct approach to the conclusions and G. H. Limited is accordingly fined £1,500 and ordered to pay £350 in costs. That fine and costs may be paid, as requested, at the rate of £200 per month.
3. We have also given careful consideration to all the matters put before us by Mr Gollop on behalf of Camerons Limited. The defendant company is clearly a company which takes issues of safety very seriously and has an excellent safety record that has continued for many years. On the other side of the coin, the Court must punish breaches of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989 because it is clearly in the interests of other employees and indeed employees of the defendant company itself that the regulations should be complied with.
4. The Court has considered very carefully all the submissions made by counsel but finds the case, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from A. G. -v- Stansell QVC Ltd . (15 th October, 1999) Jersey Unreported. We think the conclusions are accordingly correct and the company is fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £2,000 by way of costs. The company may have two weeks in which to pay. Authorities Wilkinson's Road Traffic Law: 5.227. Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989: Article 5(1); 21(1)(a). Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) (Jersey) Law, 1973: Article 2(1). A. G. -v- Jersey New Waterworks Co Ltd (28 th November, 1997) Jersey Unreported. A. G. -v- Mann (20 th October, 1997) Jersey Unreported. A. G. -v- Stansell QVC Ltd (15 th October, 1999) Jersey Unreported. A. G. -v- Gaughran (12 th December, 1997) Jersey Unreported. Page Last Updated: 19 Aug 2015 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.