Case updates: December 2000

Case updates:
Halfords Fined for Environmental Spill
Lancashire Waste Services in Court
Warning to Keep Walkways Clear
 
Halfords Fined for Environmental Spill
Halfords Car Part Retailers has been fined £10,000 by Redditch Magistrates for an oil leak from a distribution depot in the West Midlands which polluted six km of the River Arrow.
In May 1999, the Environment Agency was notified of an oil slick on the River Arrow and inspectors found that the oil was entering the watercourse via a surface water sewer. They eventually traced it to Halfords depot in Redditch.
In court, the company admitted that a fuel oil spill had occurred in its boiler room several days earlier but thought that none had escaped off site. Clean up work on the River Arrow took several weeks to complete, being hampered by thunderstorms which washed away protective booms. Halfords told the court it had spent £130,000 in clean-up costs.
The Agency stated that the fine and clean-up costs in this case should act as a warning to other companies to ensure that chemicals and oils are used, stored and disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner.
R -v- Halfords Car Part Retailers
 
Lancashire Waste Services in Court
Lancashire Waste Services was recently fined £14,000 for polluting the River Brun with landfill leachate. In December 1999, the Environment Agency was tipped off by a member of the public to a brown liquid flowing into the River Brun from a manhole cover on Lancashire Waste's Rowley landfill site. The Environment Agency commenced investigations, which revealed that a valve on a leachate collection chamber had been closed off, allowing the liquid to escape. Sampling of chemicals discharging into the river showed them to be highly polluting and ammonia concentrations in the river were comparable with raw sewage.
One of the conditions of Lancashire Waste's licence was for systems to be in place specifically to protect the river from this type of contamination. However, the Magistrates found that there was no system to prevent the valve being closed or to warn operators that a problem was occurring. The incident was a result of poor operational management and a lack of monitoring systems in the site infrastructure.The company pleaded guilty to two offences, one of causing polluting matter to enter controlled waters contrary to Section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991, the other of failing to comply with a licence contrary to Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The company was fined £7,000 for each offence and was ordered to pay the Agency's prosecution costs.
R -v- Lancashire Waste Services
 
Warning to Keep Walkways Clear
To comply with the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, employers and facilities managers must, so far as is reasonably practicable, keep floors free from obstacles.
Carolyn Robinson was employed by Midland Bank when, on 2 September 1996, she tripped over a library kick stool whilst carrying a number of trays and papers, which obscured her view. She was badly injured in the resulting fall. Evidence presented in court showed that the stool had not been in the aisle when Ms Robinson went to the filing cabinet, but had been moved into the aisle during the short intervening time before she returned.Under the 1992 Regulations and in particular reg.12(3), all floors must be kept free from obstructions. This duty in common with most health and safety duties only requires the employer to everything so far as is reasonably practicable. In December 1999, Judge Thompson QC held that her employer had done everything reasonably practicable and dismissed the claim for personal injury. The judge held that a kick stool is something that a worker should expect to find on the floor and that consequently Ms Robinson should have known that the stool was there.
The Court of Appeal overturned this decision. Although Ms Robinson had known that the stool was nearby, she had not known that it was placed in her path before her return. Further, it was not reasonable to expect the claimant to be on the lookout for a small mobile item of office furniture, such as a kick stool, whilst carrying files and papers. This decision leaves facilities managers with two complementary options:
• putting in place systems to ensure that walkways are kept clear at all times; and/or
• having a policy that no one carries items that obscure vision.
Whilst both options require training, the second option has the advantage of assisting compliance with the Manual Handing Regulations 1992.
Robinson -v- Midland Bank Plc
This document is for general guidance and research purposes only, and does not purport to give professional advice. Please check the date at the top of the article; the Workplace Law Network retains historic articles for general research.