• Father-of-one Joseph Tuck sustained serious spinal injuries that prevented him returning to a physical job.

• Simple measures to prevent a fall, including securing the stairwell cover or installing edge protection, were not in place.

• HSE identified multiple failures in the management of work at height.

A domestic house builder in Sowerby Bridge was fined after a labourer sustained serious spinal injuries when he fell one storey onto concrete through a stairwell opening.

It was only his second week on the job when Mr Joseph Tuck, 24, a father of one, stepped backwards and fell through an opening intended for a staircase that had not yet been installed. He was working as a temporary labourer for a scaffolding company in January 2024 at a site of four new domestic dwellings being constructed by Hillbeck Homes (Sowerby Bridge) Ltd.

The stairwell opening had not been securely covered (previous loose scaffold boards had been removed) and the open edges were not protected. There were no alternative means of accessing the sub-floor and West Yorkshire Fire & Rescue and the HART team had to rescue Mr. Tuck who had fallen unconscious. He sustained serious spinal injuries which prevented him from working for months after the incident and has not returned to a physical job since.

An HSE investigation found that Hillbeck Homes (Sowerby Bridge) Ltd had failed to put adequate measures in place to prevent falls from height, resulting in Mr Tuck falling through an unprotected stairwell opening and suffering life-changing injuries.

HSE guidance states that employers must take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent and mitigate falls when working at height. This includes properly planning the work, carrying out task-specific risk assessments, and putting in place physical safeguards such as scaffolding, guardrails or coverings to prevent falls, including where there is a risk of falling through openings in floors, roofs or other work platforms. Further guidance can be found here: Work at Height – HSE.

HSE Inspector Louise Redgrove said:

“Falls from height remain one of the leading causes of death in the construction industry, accounting for around a quarter of all fatal injuries to workers each year.

“This was a wholly avoidable incident caused by basic failures in planning and supervision. The stairwell opening was not adequately protected, and simple measures such as securing the scaffold boards or installing edge protection would have prevented Mr Tuck from falling and sustaining serious spinal injuries.

“This fine should serve as a clear reminder to the construction industry that both the courts and HSE take breaches of health and safety law extremely seriously.

“HSE will not hesitate to take enforcement action where employers fail to take the necessary steps to protect workers from harm.”

Hillbeck Homes (Sowerby Bridge) Ltd formerly of 1 Bretton Place, Otley Road, Guiseley, Leeds LS20 8FL was found guilty on three charges.  They failed to properly plan and appropriately supervise work at height and to take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent a fall.  The company was fined £300,000 and ordered to pay £9,284.05 in costs at Leeds Magistrates’ Court on 16 September 2026.

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Matthew Reynolds and paralegal officer Henrietta Ruthven.

Further Information

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
2. More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
3. Further details on the latest HSE news releases are available.
4. Relevant guidance can be found here Introduction to working at height safely – HSE; The Work at Height Regulations 2005
5. HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.  The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences can be found here.

• Craig Pearson, 37, sustained fatal injuries when fire extinguisher exploded
• Father-of-four described by his fiancé Rachelle as “bubbly, thoughtful and kind’
• HSE investigation found Fire Protection Recycling Ltd had failed to ensure the proper safeguards were in place for discharging of fire extinguishers at its site in West Midlands

A waste and recycling company in the West Midlands has been fined after a man described as ‘thoughtful and kind’ was killed while discharging a fire extinguisher.

Craig Pearson, 37, a father-of-four from Dudley, was working for Fire Protection Recycling Limited, at its site in Oldbury when the incident happened on 7 March 2023.

He had been processing powder fire extinguishers which were at the end of their serviceable life. While working on a cartridge type fire extinguisher, it had a sudden release of pressure and exploded, striking him in the head. After the incident, the fire extinguisher was found embedded in the ceiling of the workroom.

Craig was treated at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital for his injuries, but despite the efforts of medical staff, sadly died the next day, on 8 March.

He leaves behind his fiancée Rachelle, siblings John and Cheryl, and his four children.

Craig’s fiancé Rachelle said: “Craig was bubbly, Mr funny and adventurous.

“There was never a day where we didn’t laugh. He was thoughtful, kind and always thought about my needs and was helpful to others.

“I often sit and wonder what life would be like if Craig was here now. Would we be married? What would we be doing together?

“I take each day as it comes. I try my best to keep life as normal as possible and do my best to ensure my children are happy.”

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Fire Protection Recycling Limited failed to ensure the health, safety and welfare of its employees while at work and while they were recycling these types of fire extinguishers.

The company had failed to conduct a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, and their systems of work for processing these types of fire extinguishers were not suitable. They did not have proper storage arrangements for old extinguishers waiting for processing, and there wasn’t a suitable restraint system for containing fire extinguishers when they were being discharged, to prevent them ejecting dangerous parts.

HSE states employers must provide plant and systems of work which are so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health.

HSE inspector Heather Campbell said:

“Our thoughts today are with the family of Craig Pearson, a young dad of four.

“He should have returned home safely to his family at the end of his working day but because of the failings of Fire Protection Recycling Limited, he did not.

“I hope the sentence handed down leaves companies in no doubt that we will not hesitate to take action against those that fail to protect their employees.”

Fire Protection Recycling Limited, of Pearsall Drive, Oldbury, West Midlands, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £40,000 and ordered to pay £17,034.25 in costs at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court on 14 September 2026.

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Matthew Reynolds and paralegal officer Lynne Thomas.

Further information:

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
2. More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
3. Further details on the latest HSE news releases is available.
4. Relevant guidance can be found here: Safety requirements for pressure testing GS4
5. HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.  The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences can be found here.

• Samworth Brothers Ltd, which owns Ginsters, Soreen and West Cornwall Pasty Co. brands, handed six-figure fine over failings.
• An employee and a contractor suffered scald injuries after being splashed with hot water while carrying out maintenance of steam pipework at the manufacturer’s Kettleby Foods factory in Melton Mowbray.
• HSE investigation found the company failed to assess risks of the maintenance task and that isolation and lock-off procedures were not followed.

A major food manufacturing company has been fined £594,000 following an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), after an employee and their colleague suffered scald injuries when they were carrying out maintenance work on steam pipework in the company’s factory in Melton Mowbray.

The two men were working at the Kettleby Foods factory, operated by Samworth Brothers Ltd, which owns popular food brands including Ginsters, West Cornwall Pasty Co. and Soreen, when they were scalded by hot water from the pipework.

The men were working to replace a leaking gasket in an isolation valve on steam pipework in the boiler room of the factory. They were undertaking the work from a gantry above the boiler. The gantry didn’t provide access to the specific part of the pipework they were working on, and so both men had to step off the gantry and work on top of the boiler. When they removed the gasket, they were both splashed with hot water from the pipework, suffering scald injuries. One of the men suffered 4-5% subdermal burns, and the other suffered 9% subdermal, second-degree burns.

The investigation by HSE found that Samworth Brothers Limited had failed to risk assess the task and failed to document a safe system of work for the work being undertaken. The investigation found that suitable isolation and lock-off procedures were not used at the time of the incident, and that the work was undertaken at height without sufficient measures in place to prevent a fall from height. There was a lack of adequate supervision and monitoring procedures in place to ensure that expected processes were followed.

HSE guidance states that adequate planning of tasks requiring isolation means there should be preparation and coordination of job documentation such as risk assessments, method statements, permits and isolation certificates. The integrity of isolations should be proved before proceeding with intrusive work. When working at height, employers should make sure work is properly planned, supervised and carried out by competent people, including using the right type of equipment for working at height.

HSE Inspector Stacey Gamwell said:

“A company this size should have known better.

“This was a wholly avoidable incident which could have resulted in even more serious consequences.

“If Samworth Brothers Ltd had properly risk-assessed the task, they would have identified the need for proper controls for working at height, as well as robust isolation and lock-off procedures, including supervision and monitoring to make sure those procedures and controls were properly enforced.

“Their failure led to severe and painful scalding injuries which should never have happened.

“The result handed down should serve as a warning to employers; when it comes to keeping people safe, HSE won’t hesitate to take action against firms which fall short.”

Samworth Brothers Limited, of Chetwode House, 1 Samworth Way, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £594,000 and ordered to pay £5,834 in prosecution costs, in full, and a £2,000 victim surcharge, at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court on 4 September 2026. The company was also ordered to pay £6,000 in compensation to the injured employee. All sums are to be paid by 4 January 2027.

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Andrew Siddall and paralegal officer Thomas Smith.

Further information:

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
2. More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
3. Further details on the latest HSE news releases is available.
4. Relevant guidance can be found here: The safe isolation of plant and equipment – HSE
5. HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.  The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences can be found here.

Following the incident which took place on July 30, 2026, at Taff’s Well Quarry, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is continuing its investigation into the cause.

The incident followed a planned blast in a separate development area of the quarry to the quarry production operations. The incident blast was the second blast in the roof of the old Garth Iron Mine. These blasts were planned development blasts designed to collapse the roof of the old mine to open up new areas of mineral reserve for extraction by quarrying.

This development work had been subject to geotechnical assessment and design, including for the blasts and for engineering mitigation measures installed in the mine. The planning for these development operations had been undertaken for over 9 years by the previous and current quarry operators.

The integrity of the walls of the old mine voids and the mine adit was not compromised during the development blasting activities.

Inspectors initially attended the site and are continuing their investigation. Our investigations continue to focus on the geotechnical assessments, geotechnical designs and the designs for the blast and installed mitigation measures. This is a complex technical investigation and will take many months.

A Health and Safety Executive spokesperson said:

“We recognise the severe impact this incident had on the local community and the disruption caused to the lives of residents.

“The nature of our investigation is technical and complex, and we will continue to keep partners and the affected community informed of our progress.”

Further information:

• HSE does not approve individual blasting operations; quarry operators are responsible for ensuring their activities comply with the Quarries Regulations 1999.
• HSE is responsible for investigating potential breaches of Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
• The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety.

• Worker sustained life-changing injuries after a 1.2-tonne crate fell from a forklift truck.
• HSE investigation found unloading operation was poorly planned, not assessed and unsupervised.
• Case highlights the importance of properly managing non-standard lifting operations.

A Hull business has been sentenced after safety breaches resulted in a 64-year-old employee sustaining life-changing injuries.

Smith & Nephew Medical Ltd was sentenced on 14 September 2026 after Mr Dubey, an employee of Nippon Express (UK) Ltd, was seriously injured when a crate weighing approximately 1.2 tonnes fell from a forklift truck.

Hull Crown Court heard that on 22 December 2020, Mr Dubey was delivering a large crate containing an electron microscope to Smith & Nephew Medical Ltd’s site. Nippon Express had originally intended to provide a forklift truck and driver for the delivery. However, due to restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, Smith & Nephew Medical Ltd sought to reduce the number of people on site and took responsibility for unloading the goods.

The task was not properly assessed, planned or supervised. As a result, Mr Dubey was positioned unsafely and the load was lifted in an unsafe manner, causing the crate to fall from the forklift truck and land on him, resulting in life-changing injuries.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Smith & Nephew Medical Ltd had failed to adequately plan the unloading operation. There was no assessment of the suitability of the company’s two-tonne forklift truck in relation to the characteristics of the load. The company also failed to consider how the lift should be carried out, who should be involved and what precautions were necessary. The unloading operation was not meaningfully controlled or supervised.

HSE guidance on planning and organising lifting operations states that lifting operations can often put people at great risk of injury, as well as incurring great costs when they go wrong. It is therefore important to properly resource, plan and organise lifting operations so they are carried out in a safe manner.

Smith & Nephew Medical Ltd, of Hull, was found guilty of breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £230,000 and ordered to pay £111,000 in costs.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector David Stewart said:

“The company should have had clear procedures in place setting out how deliveries were to be managed and what safety measures were required for third parties attending site. These requirements did not change just because normal delivery arrangements at Smith & Nephew had changed, due to restrictions on third-party access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“If Smith & Nephew were not to play any role in unloading deliveries, this should have been clearly specified. If third parties were permitted to take part, including supervising or guiding a forklift truck driver, this should also have been clearly defined, along with the actions necessary to ensure their safety.

“This case should serve as a reminder to the wider industry of the need to properly plan and supervise unloading operations, particularly where non-standard loads are involved. Such operations require a risk assessment proportionate to the hazards, taking account of the nature of the load, the suitability of lifting equipment and the arrangements for execution and supervision.”

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Jonathan Bambro and paralegal officer Rebecca Forman.

Further information:

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. We are dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping everyone lead safer and healthier lives.
2. More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available.
3. Further details on the latest HSE news releases is available.
4. Relevant guidance can be found here: Planning and organising lifting operations – HSE.
5. HSE does not pass sentences, set guidelines or collect any fines imposed. Relevant sentencing guidelines must be followed unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.  The sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences can be found here.