• The company had received previous enforcement notices on several occasions over an 11-year period 

• Employees had no access to running water or soap after sorting waste materials that could be contaminated with asbestos by hand 

• HSE guidance states employers must provide employees who are liable to interact with asbestos containing materials with suitable training

A waste and recycling company has been fined £36,000 for repeatedly failing to provide appropriate welfare facilities and asbestos awareness training for employees at a site in North Wales.  

Llandudno Magistrates’ Court heard how workers at World Care (Wales) Limited, were tasked with sorting waste and recyclable materials by hand without having facilities to wash dry themselves afterwards.  

It’s illegal to put asbestos straight into standard bin bags/skips and recent inspections within the industry have shown widespread non-compliance, specifically at asbestos landfill sites and asbestos contaminated soil processing.  

At the World Care site, it was identified through a routine inspection that the company had failed to make warm running water and soap available to employees as well as a means to dry themselves. There had been at least one occasion where asbestos had been brought onto the site, yet they continued to not provide asbestos awareness training to employees.  

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that World Care (Wales) had received previous enforcement on several occasions over an 11–year period. On each occasion, inspectors found that the company failed to maintain the minimum health and safety standards required. These enforcement notices were in relation to welfare provisions and training. 

HSE Inspector James Benton said: “The health risks from exposure to material containing asbestos is well known yet this company wasn’t providing the appropriate facilities for workers to protect themselves.  

“Basic welfare provision is essential to ensure that employees can clean themselves at work, to help prevent exposure to harmful microorganisms. After being told of the risks, this company  repeatedly failed to provide adequate welfare facilities such as soap and running water, and failed to provide asbestos awareness training to employees.   

World Care (Wales) Limited of Tre Marl Industrial Estate, North Wales, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £36,000 and £8,867 in costs at Llandudno Magistrates’ Court on 6 July 2026. The company opted to make the payments over a 16-month period. 

This HSE prosecution was brought by HSE enforcement lawyer Alan Hughes and paralegal officer Lynne Thomas. 

More 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.  

1. More information about the legislation referred to in this case is available. 

1. Further details on the latest HSE news releases is available.  

1. Relevant guidance can be found here  The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 

1. Workers in skilled trades are at particular risk of discovering and disturbing asbestos during their work. Make sure you know what to look for, and what to do to protect yourself when you come across asbestos with our Asbestos & You quick guide for trades. 

1. 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.

• Steven Tervit, 32, was working in a scissor lift when he was ejected out of it
• He had worked for company for 15 years
• Company failed to suitably and sufficiently risk assess the work

A Hamilton-based company has been fined after a worker died when a series of wall panels collapsed and ejected him from a scissor lift.

Steven Tervit had been carrying out a dismantling operation at a specialist technology centre in Renfrew on 9 November 2022 when the incident happened. The 32-year-old was employed as a labourer by Food Process Engineering Limited and had worked for the company for approximately 15 years.

Mr Tervit had been working at a height of around four metres on a scissor lift, removing wall panels from a cleanroom at the National Manufacturing Institute Scotland (NMIS) at Westway Business Park, Porterfield Road, when the remaining panels fell and struck the platform. Mr Tervit was thrown from the lift onto the concrete floor of the warehouse.

He was taken to the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital where he was found to have suffered a traumatic brain injury, rib fractures, lung contusions and fractures to his right thigh bone and left shin bone. He died in hospital the following day.

The cleanroom, which had been used to house a welding robot, was a steel-framed structure with walls and roof constructed of polyurethane panels measuring 6.1 metres in height. Food Process Engineering Limited had been subcontracted to remove the panels as part of the wider dismantling operation.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the company had failed to adequately assess and manage the risks associated with dismantling a structure it had not originally installed.

The wall panels, once the roof had been removed, had insufficient lateral support to maintain their structural stability. HSE found that the company’s risk assessment and method statement did not adequately address the risk of unplanned collapse due to structural instability. Although the company’s own method statement specified that ‘A-frame’ props or supports should be installed where necessary, no such props were present or in use on site at the time of the accident.

The company had carried out visual inspections of the exterior of the cleanroom prior to commencing work and proceeded on the assumption that it had been constructed to industry standard. HSE established that this assumption was unsafe, as the disassembly of a structure built by a third party carried an inherent risk of latent defects that could elevate the risk of structural failure.

The company also failed to communicate its risk assessment and method statement to the employees carrying out the work, meaning workers on site were not adequately informed of the risks involved.

Falls while working at height remain the leading cause of workplace injury and death. New data published by HSE for 2025/26 revealed that 31 people died – representing around a quarter of all work-related deaths for the year.

Food Process Engineering Limited, of Unit 17, Whistleberry Industrial Estate, Hamilton, pleaded guilty to breaching sections 2(1), 2(a) and (c) and 33(1)(a) and (c) of the Health and Safety at Work Act etc 1974. The company was fined £50,000 with a victim surcharge of £3,750 at Paisley Sheriff Court on 6 July 2026.

HSE inspector Amna Doherty said:

“The failings of this company cost a much-loved husband, father and son his life.

“Falls from height remain the leading cause of workplace death and injury.

“There was a lack of planning in terms of the risk and those being tasked with the job were not aware of the dangers posed to them.

“We will not hesitate to take action against those who fail to protect their workers.”

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. 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 in Scotland can be found here.

• A 12-year-old girl was injured by falling glass at Christmas lights event in Hanley in 2024.
• A snow machine fell from a window above the gift shop where members of the public were gathered.
• Emma Bridgewater Ltd was found to have failed to secure snow machine installed above public area.

Ceramics manufacturer Emma Bridgewater has been handed a £266,666 fine after a young girl was injured by falling broken glass during a Christmas lights switch-on event at its premises in Hanley.

The sentence was imposed after a Health & Safety Executive investigation found the company had failed to properly secure a snow machine which fell from a window above.

On 23 November 2024, the 12-year-old victim attended an annual Christmas lights switch-on event with her family at the Emma Bridgewater gift shop in Hanley. During the event, an artificial snow machine, which was in a window opening above the gift shop, fell out of the building and to the ground below. The machine hit a light on the way, sending a shard of broken glass towards the girl’s head, she suffered a deep cut which required hospital treatment.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Emma Bridgewater Limited had not properly assessed the risks associated with the use of the snow machine and had failed to ensure that it was properly secured to prevent it from falling out of the window, despite the manufacturer’s instructions demonstrating clearly how to safely install it.

The Work at Height Regulations 2005 require employers to ensure that suitable steps are taken to prevent the fall of any material or objects where there is a risk of injury to employees or members of the public.

At Birmingham Magistrates’ Court on 30th January 2026, Emma Bridgewater Limited of Lichfield Street, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 10(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £266,666 and ordered to pay costs of £4931 along with a victim surcharge of £2000

Health & Safety Executive Inspector Rob Gidman said:

“What should have been a festive event was marred by haphazard planning which left a young girl needing hospital treatment.

“Had the positioning of the snow machine been properly planned and the machine itself been properly secured, this incident could have been avoided entirely – and it’s fortunate the victim did not sustain more serious injuries.

“Christmas gatherings are a happy occasion, but it’s vital organisers thoroughly assess the risks and put in place measures to minimise the risk of harm to the public.”

The HSE investigation was supported by Visiting Officer, Sarah Ough, and the prosecution was brought by enforcement lawyer Samantha Tiger.

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 Working at height: A brief guide.
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.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has issued its first ever Prohibition Notice against an occupational health service provider, following findings that inadequate health surveillance was putting workers at risk of serious and irreversible harm.

The action marks a significant milestone in HSE’s regulation of occupational health provision and is evidence of the regulator’s focus on the prevention of ill-health. This enforcement sends a clear signal that substandard occupational health services will not be tolerated where they create real risks to workers’ health.

HSE inspectors found that the provider was delivering health surveillance through personnel who were inadequately trained, unqualified, and unsupervised. The ineffective surveillance meant that early signs of serious occupational diseases — including occupational asthma, dermatitis, and noise-induced hearing loss — were at risk of going undetected, leaving workers exposed to wood dust and noise without appropriate intervention.

A Prohibition Notice was issued to stop this activity on the grounds that it created a risk of serious personal injury.

HSE subsequently issued an Improvement Notice after finding that the provider’s health surveillance arrangements were fundamentally unsuitable. Inspectors identified a lack of competent occupational health oversight, inadequate clinical governance, no quality assurance processes, and no clear procedures for escalating adverse findings or reviewing workplace controls.

HSE Occupational Health Inspector Julie Wood said: “This is the first time HSE has taken enforcement action of this kind against an occupational health service provider, and we have not done so lightly. It reflects the seriousness with which we view the quality of occupational health provision and our determination to act where substandard services are putting people in harm’s way.

“Health surveillance exists to protect workers from work-related health conditions that can cause permanent, life-changing harm. When it is carried out poorly, employers are given false assurance and workers are left unknowingly at risk.

“We expect occupational health providers to demonstrate genuine competence, proper clinical governance, and clear processes for acting on what they find. Anything less is a failure of the workers these services are meant to protect.”

Health surveillance is a legal requirement for many employers and exists to identify occupational diseases early so that appropriate action can then be taken to protect the affected worker and their colleagues. When health surveillance is carried out poorly, it creates a false sense of assurance for employers while leaving workers unknowingly at risk.

This case underlines the importance of occupational health services being delivered by competent, appropriately qualified professionals with robust clinical governance in place. Supporting employers to access competent occupational health services is a key part of HSE’s strategy to reduce work-related ill health, alongside ensuring that where health surveillance is legally required it is carried out effectively. HSE expects employers to satisfy themselves that the occupational health providers they appoint are capable of delivering services that meet legal requirements and help protect workers from preventable occupational disease.

Further information:

1. The HSE public enforcement register can be found at www.hse.gov.uk.
2. To account for the appeals process and internal quality assurance, enforcement notices are published 5 weeks after they are served
3. A Prohibition Notice requires an activity to stop immediately where HSE believes it involves a risk of serious personal injury or ill health.
4. An Improvement Notice requires specific remedial action to be taken within a set timeframe to address a contravention of health and safety law.
5. Health surveillance is required under a range of regulations including the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) and the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has authorised a Crown Censure of the Ministry of Defence, and the prosecution of defence contractor Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land Ltd.

This action follows an investigation into a fatal tank explosion in Pembrokeshire in 2017 which killed two soldiers and left a third seriously injured.

Corporal Darren Neilson, 31, and Corporal Matthew Hatfield, 27, died when an L30 gun exploded on a Challenger 2 tank at Castlemartin Range in Pembrokeshire on 14 June 2017 and injured two other soldiers, leaving one with life changing injuries.

Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land Ltd was responsible for producing the Safety Case for the tank and gun, while the Ministry of Defence held ultimate responsibility for the health, safety and welfare of its soldiers, and for the suitability and sufficiency of the Safety Case.

Following an investigation by HSE inspectors, a file was passed to HSE’s legal services division for review, which in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors has authorised:

1. A Crown Censure against the Ministry of Defence for failing to ensure the health, safety and welfare of soldiers, under Section 2 of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act (1974)
2. A charge against Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land Ltd (formerly BAE Systems Global Combat Systems Ltd) for failing to ensure the health and safety of persons not in its employment, under Section 3 of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act (1974)

Neither the authorisation of criminal charges nor a Crown Censure represents a finding of guilt. No other organisations or individuals have been charged in connection with this incident.

Further information:

Crown Censure 

A Crown Censure is the maximum sanction available to HSE against a Crown body. A decision to authorise a Crown Censure is not a formal finding of guilt – it is equivalent to a decision to authorise criminal charges, in line with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

Following the decision to issue a Crown Censure, a formal hearing will take place to confirm the censure.

If a censure is confirmed at a hearing, it acts as an official reprimand and provides a lasting, public record of a Crown body’s failure to comply with the law. There is no financial penalty.

A record of Crown Censures issued by HSE is available at: Crown Censures taken by HSE since 1 April 1999

Timelines

The Crown Censure of MoD and criminal charges against Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land Ltd are separate proceedings and run on different timelines.

Media are encouraged to seek legal advice before publishing any story which could prejudice any future trial of Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land Ltd.

The Contempt of Court Act 1981 strict liability rule applies.