Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Peter Green (Builders) Ltd [2012] JRC 225 (30 November 2012)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The company failed in its obligation to provide a safe system of work, leaving employees to look after themselves, and is therefore liable to be fined.

Court disposition

company fined and ordered to pay costs

Orders

  • The company is fined £20,000.
  • The company is ordered to pay costs of £2,500.
  • Three months granted for payment.

02

Material facts

Parties

Mr McClelland

Employee

The Company

Employer Counsel: Advocate Ingram

Amounts and remedies

  • Fine: GBP 20,000
  • Costs: GBP 2,500

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The company failed in its duty to provide a safe system of work, resulting in Mr McClelland's injury.
Respondent
The company took its obligations seriously, had a training programme, no previous record, was cooperative, and entered an early guilty plea.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989, as amended

    Employers have a duty to provide a safe system of work for employees.

  2. 02

    AG-v-Hamel Brothers Limited and the Jersey Royal Company Limited [2010] JRC 080

    Sentencing may be mitigated by early guilty plea, cooperation, and lack of previous record.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The company failed in its obligation to provide a safe system of work, leaving employees to look after themselves, and is therefore liable to be fined.

Obiter and limits

  • The company was lulled into a false sense of security due to the employee's experience.
  • The company has since accentuated its training programme and has no previous record.

Court disposition

company fined and ordered to pay costs

  • The company is fined £20,000.
  • The company is ordered to pay costs of £2,500.
  • Three months granted for payment.

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.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2012] JRC 225

JUDGMENT THE BAILIFF: 1. It is clear from what we have been told that the company in this case left Mr McClelland to get on with the contract and he was given insufficient support, guidance and supervision. As a result, when attending to a snagging problem, Mr McClelland and his colleague adopted an unsafe practice in using an unfixed ladder to gain access to a gutter; the unfortunate consequence was that he fell 11 feet and suffered a fracture to the vertebrae in his back. He remains in considerable pain and has clearly suffered a serious injury.

2. We accept that the company was lulled into a false sense of security because of Mr McClelland's very considerable experience and expertise. But the fact is that it was the company's duty to provide a safe system of work and they failed in that duty to Mr McClelland and their other employees. However, we accept that this is a company which takes its obligations seriously, we have been shown the training programme and that has been accentuated since this accident; it does not have a previous record, it has been cooperative and it entered an early guilty plea. We accept from what we have been told that this was not a case of a company seeking to save money by not taking its obligations seriously. We think the facts of this case are not dissimilar to those of the case of AG-v-Hamel Brothers Limited and the Jersey Royal Company Limited [2012] JRC 080 . The company failed in its obligation, it in effect left the employees to look after themselves, and it must therefore be fined. But we agree with Advocate Ingram that in the circumstances we can properly reduce the level of fine.

3. The company is fined the sum of £20,000 together with costs of £2,500 and we give you three months in which to pay. Authorities Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 19989, as amended. AG-v-Hamel Brothers Limited and the Jersey Royal Company Limited [2010] JRC 080 . AG-v-R&M Sprinkler Installations Limited and SFS Fire Services Limited t/a Hall and Kay Fire Engineering [2011] JRC 139 . R-v-F Howe & Son (Engineers) Ltd [1999] 2 Cr App R (S) 37 . Page Last Updated: 13 Sep 2016 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

AG-v-Hamel Brothers Limited and the Jersey Royal Company Limited [2010] JRC 080

Case cited

AG-v-R&M Sprinkler Installations Limited and SFS Fire Services Limited t/a Hall and Kay Fire Engineering [2011] JRC 139

Case cited

R-v-F Howe & Son (Engineers) Ltd [1999] 2 Cr App R (S) 37

Case cited

Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law 1989, as amended

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.