Dallas McMillan's Blog

A 23-year-old man died from massive crush injuries when his head became trapped in the jaws of a grab machine being wrongly used to move a pallet of cement bags.

Steven Allen was part of a team working for Skipton-based construction company JN Bentley Ltd on a building project for Bradford Council in March 2007. Moving the 30 or so cement bags was to be the last job before the weekend when the incident happened.

Bradford Crown Court heard that workers used a block grab attached to an excavator to move the load. As they did, the bags fell two metres to the ground, but the pallet remained in the jaws of the block grab. The pallet pivoted and Steven Allen took hold of it to pull it free. As the pallet came away, the jaws dropped and clamped on Steven’s head, causing severe injuries. He died the following day.

After an investigation, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) mounted the prosecution against Mr Allen’s employers. The court was told the HSE’s findings revealed that the grab was being used against manufacturer’s instructions and was not suitable for the job. Block grabs are designed to lift and move rectangular loads strapped together such as packs of bricks. The company had also failed to implement a safe system for lifting and transporting the bags of cement.

The company had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. It was fined £106,250 and ordered to pay costs of £90,000.

HSE Principal Inspector, Dave Redman, said:

"It shouldn’t take a death to remind employers that failure to properly plan the work can have tragic consequences. An alternative way of lifting the pallet should have been used. Pallets are designed to be lifted using fork attachments which could have been fitted to the excavator.  This would have prevented the incident which led to Steven Allen’s death. If employers take their eye off the ball, it’s all too easy for otherwise safe and routine tasks to turn into unacceptable risks."

In an overhaul of victims’ services, up to £50 million would be generated from offenders to help create a speedier, more supportive system for victims of serious crime.

Criminals will be forced to fund victims' support services and those with unspent convictions could be banned from claiming compensation, under new proposals announced by Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke.

The planned shake-up, which is now out to public consultation, includes:

• Ending payments for minor injuries such as sprained ankles, cuts and grazes and speeding up payments for serious injuries;
• Greater funding for victims' support services, better targeted at those most in need;
• Stopping criminal injuries compensation payments to people with unspent convictions - totalling at least £75million over the past decade;
• Banning criminal injuries compensation payments to people who have been resident in the UK for less than 6 months (except for UK and EU/EEA nationals);
• A simpler route of complaint and redress for victims;
• Giving new Police and Crime Commissioners a key role in deciding the priorities for local victims' services;
• Ensuring more voluntary victims' organisations have access to long-term funding.

The Government will also, for the first time, compensate British victims of terrorist atrocities abroad on the same basis as victims of terrorism in Britain. Those with ongoing disabilities from attacks after 2002 will also receive financial support.

The Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) is renewing its call on the government to make driving on rural A-roads a mandatory part of the driving test.

IAM research shows that 82% of rural fatal and serious casualties are on single carriageway roads compared with just 18% on motorways and dual carriageway roads.

However the current driving test fails to take this into account. While good instructors understand that experience on a wide variety of roads in different conditions gives young people the best chance of survival, all too many merely educate up to the existing test standard. Knowledge of parking, emergency stops and low speed manoeuvres is important but dealing with high speed corners, bad weather, and overtaking are far more vital skills.

The recent report from the IAM 'The fast and the curious', found that new drivers themselves felt unprepared for real life scenarios and would welcome extra help.

The IAM has written to the road safety minister to outline its views on how it believes the government should tackle deaths and accidents of the highest risk group on our roads, young drivers. This starts with improving the driving test to include training on our most dangerous roads – single-carriageway rural A-roads.

IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “Driver and rider error is a contributory factor in two thirds of accidents. We can only improve our cars and roads so far. The challenge now is to improve the humans that drive them, to continue our outstanding record of road safety.”

The Court of Session has ruled that responsibility for a car crash that killed two people and severely injured a third was shared equally between two of the drivers involved, reports the Scotsman.

Thirteen-year-old Kaya McInnes survived the accident, which happened in the Highlands in 2007, but was so badly injured she needed to learn to walk again. It was recognised that she was entitled to compensation, however liability for payment was disputed between the insurance companies of the two drivers at fault.

The Court ruling means that both companies, Norwich Union and Axa, will both be liable to pay an equal share of the compensation. According to the Scotsman, the exact amount of money involved has not been revealed.

Following recent concerns regarding French Poly Implant Prostheses implants, the Government has announced a review, led by Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS Medical Director, to look at the arrangements for ensuring the safety of people seeking cosmetic interventions such as breast implants and dermal fillers.

In addition, the Care Quality Commission is to conduct a swift review of private clinics that offer cosmetic surgery. They will look at whether they meet essential levels of safety and quality and at the information and support they provide to their patients. Where a provider does not meet these requirements, the CQC has a wide range of enforcement powers that it can use to protect the safety of patients.

Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, said:

“The safety of people who decide to have cosmetic surgery or a cosmetic intervention is my sole aim. The vast majority of practitioners in the cosmetic industry are professional and well skilled – but I’m concerned that the sector as a whole does not have the systems for monitoring the results for patients and alerting us to possible problems.

“I will work with the industry to improve regulation and governance and increase consumer confidence.”

A specialist crane supplier has been fined £180,000 after a worker was killed when a large steel beam fell on him at an incinerator in Slough, Berkshire.

Colin Dickson, 38, of Motherwell, died when the temporary suspension points on a suspended beam he was under failed. The 1.4 tonne beam fell five metres onto Mr Dickson causing fatal injuries to his chest, and fractures to his legs and back.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Mr Dickson's employers J H Carruthers Ltd and one of its supervisors after an investigation into how the lifting operation failed.

The HSE investigation found that the lifting operation could have been successful if the whole process had been planned, appropriately supervised and carried out in a safe manner from the outset.

HSE's Inspector Karen Morris said:

"This tragic incident shows the importance of carrying out a thorough assessment of hazards and properly managing all lifting operations. This was a complex and unusual lift which went drastically wrong due to a lack of competent planning and a failure to supervise and carry out the task safely. The risks involved in such lifting operations should not be underestimated.

"Health and safety law places stringent requirements on employers in these circumstances, for very good reason. This incident was entirely preventable and it should act as a reminder to others that standards need to be maintained to ensure the safety of workers at all times."

J H Carruthers Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The firm was fined £180,000 and ordered to pay costs of £74,000.

A consultation on the development of a safety system for adventure activities in Scotland has been launched by the Minister for Commonwealth Games and Sport, Shona Robison.

The Scottish Government is considering the best way forward for Scotland in light of the UK Government's plan to replace the statutory Adventure Activities Licensing Authority (AALA) with a new voluntary code of practice.

The AALA was established in 1995 to licence caving, climbing, trekking and watersports operators after four young people lost their lives canoeing at Lyme Bay in Dorset.

The consultation seeks views on three proposals:

• Adopting the model proposed by the UK Government - this would see the current licensing regime replaced with a voluntary code of practice. This would remove the costs and bureaucracy associated with licensing but end the current inspection regime.
• Introducing a non-statutory, voluntary accreditation scheme - this would still include an element of inspection and accreditation, however, public bodies would only be able to promote and encourage compliance not enforce any scheme.
• Introducing a statutory scheme - this would see the continuation of an inspection and statutory scheme for Scotland, although an appropriate body would need to be identified to carry out its functions

Ms Robison, Minister for Commonwealth Games and Sport, said:

“The UK Government's proposed abolition of the AALA has implications for Scotland. Any safety system developed for adventure activities in Scotland would need to meet the needs of Scottish providers and users whilst being robust and proportionate."

"That's why I want to hear views on whether a statutory inspection and licensing regime should be maintained or if a new approach should be adopted and would encourage anyone with an interest to have their say on what should be put in place."

A recent survey by road safety charity Brake and Direct Line Car Insurance has revealed that one in nine young drivers (11%) has driven after taking illegal drugs in the past year.

The survey also found that 3% of young drivers (age 17-24) said they get behind the wheel after taking drugs once a month or more. Slightly more young drivers are admitting drug driving than four years ago, when one in eleven young drivers (9%) owned up to this potentially deadly behaviour.

Brake is calling for long-needed reform, including:

• A new law making it an offence to drive while on illegal drugs, to rectify the current loophole. Currently it is only an offence to drive while impaired by drugs, meaning police must prove impairment to prosecute.
• Approval and roll-out of roadside drug screening devices, so police can test for drugs at the roadside and immediately following a crash.

Drug driving is a widespread menace. In the UK, around 18% of people killed in road crashes have traces of illegal drugs in their blood, with cannabis being the most common. Young drivers are much more likely to take illegal drugs and drive than their older counterparts. Drivers under 25 years old are nearly four times as likely to drive on illegal drugs as older drivers (11% compared to 3%).

Ellen Booth, Brake senior campaigns officer, said: "The risks of driving on drugs are huge, and the consequences devastating – yet a huge proportion of young drivers are taking this appalling gamble with their own and others' lives. We need all drivers to pledge to never mix drugs and driving, and we need the government to follow through with its commitment to tackle this problem."

Private landlords who rent out residential property either by themselves or via a letting agency are now subject to new rules pertaining to deposits paid by an incoming tenant.

Historically  deposits have been taken by a landlord at the beginning of a residential tenancy to provide a  fund held by the landlord for the life of the tenancy and which could be used  if , eg, a tenant fell into arrears with their rent or at the end of a tenancy to pay for the cleaning of the property if it is not returned in an appropriate condition to the landlord.

Unfortunately unscrupulous landlords have often failed to return deposits to tenants at the end of a tenancy often citing spurious reasons as to why the funds cannot be released.

Hopefully with the coming into force of The Tenancy Deposit Schemes (Scotland) Regulations 2011 tenants’ deposits will now be better protected.

In terms of same landlords will now be compelled to pay all deposits into an approved scheme rather than holding the funds themselves.

Landlords will now be obliged to pay the deposit into an approved scheme & provide the tenant with details of same within 30 days of the commencement of a tenancy.

Deposits held for existing tenancies will also be subject to the new Rules and landlords will have to move deposits they hold for tenants into an approved scheme within a specified timescale depending on the start and end dates of each tenancy.  Consequently landlords who have a number of properties rented out may therefore have to find quite large sums of money to pay to an approved scheme.

At the end of a tenancy, the tenant will make application to the scheme for the return of the deposit.  The scheme has to consult the landlord and seek their agreement to the release of the funds.

If there is no dispute then the deposit is simply repaid to the tenant.  If there is a dispute, then depending on the nature of the dispute then either the whole deposit will be retained until the dispute is resolved or if the dispute is over a specified and quantifiable matter then a partial refund can be made to the tenant with the remainder of the deposit being retained by the scheme until the dispute is resolved.

Each scheme must also make available a dispute resolution mechanism which is to be provided free of charge to both landlord and tenant.   In terms of same an adjudicator , independent of both landlord and tenant, must decide on the dispute within 20 days of receiving the referral.

Landlords who fail to comply with their duties regarding deposits in terms of the Rules face financial sanctions that can be ordered by a sheriff.

The creation of accurate tenancy agreements properly addressing the issue of the tenancy deposit is consequently crucial.

These new Rules are in addition to the existing requirements that all private landlords must  register with their local authority that they are a “fit and proper person” to let property.  It is an offence to let any house without being registered and from 31st August 2011 the maximum fine for operating as an unregistered landlord increased to £50,000.

In addition also from 31st August 2011 local authorities now have the power to require a criminal record certificate if it deems it necessary when applying the fit and proper person test. Any failure to provide this can lead to the landlord being removed from the register.

It is also now an offence if a landlord appoints an agent and does not notify the local authority of this.  This will be punishable by a fine of up to £1000.

Contact our property solicitors on 0141 333 6750, email us at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or complete our online enquiry form today for further information about these new legal rules for private landlords.

The window of opportunity for first time buyers to benefit from relief from stamp duty land tax in transactions with considerations not exceeding £250,000 will close on 24th March 2012.

Stamp duty land tax is ordinarily payable on the purchase of residential property at the rate of 1% for considerations over £125,000 but  not exceeding £250,000 (with higher rates of tax applying to considerations over £250,000).

The Budget on 24th March 2010 created a 2 year period within which relief from stamp duty land tax was given to first time buyers where the price paid for a house did not exceed £250,000.

I n a few short weeks that relief will end and first time buyers will again have to find additional sums to meet the tax liability which in the current depressed market conditions  is unlikely in many cases  to be easily achievable.

The removal of the relief will be another obstacle in the revitalisation of the residential property market.

Contact our residential property solicitors on 0141 333 6750, email us at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or complete our online enquiry form today for further legal information or advice about the legal implications of SDLT for first time buyers.

A construction company and its managing director have been sentenced after a father-of-two was crushed to death when a crane overturned in Liverpool.

Richard Mark Thornton, 46, from Longridge near Preston, died when a 50-tonne crane toppled over while moving a steel column in March 2007.

Mr Thornton's employer and the managing director of the company were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for failing to make sure the work was planned and carried out safely.

Liverpool Crown Court heard the crane had been used to lift the six-tonne steel column when it was nearly 18 metres away, taking it well outside its safe lifting capacity for that distance.

The HSE investigation found the crane had not been properly maintained and the external alarm could not be heard by those working nearby. The override switches were also faulty, including the switch that prevented the crane lifting loads beyond its capacity.

The managing director was fined £80,000 and ordered to pay £18,478 in prosecution costs. 

Mr Thornton was one of 79 construction workers to be killed while at work in Great Britain in 2006/7. There were also nearly 4,500 major injuries reported to HSE.

A woman from Edinburgh has been awarded compensation after slipping on a wet floor in a branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland, reports the BBC.

The 65-year-old sustained a soft tissue injury to her ankle, and was unable to work for three weeks.

The wet floor was caused by a leak coming from an upstairs flat, which had existed for a number of months. Bank staff had placed a bucket to try to catch the drips, which were falling near the area used by queuing customers.

In defending the claim, the Royal Bank tried to argue contributory negligence, saying that if the woman had paid more attention she would have seen that the floor was wet. This argument was rejected by the judge however, who said that the bank had “adopted a cavalier approach to the risk presented by the leak,” and awarded the woman £7,500 compensation.

As you may have learned recently in the media, the former Chief Executive of Rangers FC, Martin Bain, is claiming at least £960,000 damages from Rangers FC in connection with the termination of his employment.  Following a recent Court Hearing, Mr. Bain was granted Warrant by the Court to arrest £480,000 of funds  due to Rangers “on the dependence of his claim”.

1.    What is a Warrant to arrest and/or inhibit on the dependence of a Court action?

Warrant to arrest and warrant to inhibit are interim protective remedies which can be obtained by a person claiming payment of money from an alleged debtor. If the application is granted by the Court, a Warrant to arrest on the dependence authorises the claimant to arrest (freeze) funds of the debtor in the hands of third parties, including the debtor’s bankers.  The claimant then proceeds to try and succeed with his claim in Court.

Warrant to inhibit on the dependence is similar, but allows instead the freezing of heritable property assets of the debtor rather than money due to the debtor.

2.    When is Warrant granted by the Court?

If a Court action is raised and warrant to arrest/inhibit on the dependence sought at the outset of the case, the Court can grant the application if (1) the claimant has a good stateable case, (2)  if the debtor is either (a) absolutely insolvent (assets less than liabilities) or practically insolvent (unable to pay his debts as they fall due) or (b) if there is sufficient risk of the debtor being insolvent before the claim is concluded, and (3) if it is reasonable overall for the Court to grant the application.

3.    How did Martin Bain succeed  in his application against a huge institution like Rangers FC?

Attached is a copy of the full decision of the Court.  Mr. Bain satisfied tests (1), (2b) and (3) above.  He showed a good stateable claim for damages against Rangers.  He showed that while Rangers were solvent at the time, if they lost the ongoing £49m HMRC tax case, they would be very likely to be insolvent and unable to meet Mr. Bain’s claim if he won it.   Mr. Bain also showed it was reasonable to be grant warrant and arrest funds due to Rangers by third parties (although the Warrant was reduced by 50% to £480,000 of funds because Mr. Bain was directly involved in setting up the offshore player payment schemes leading to the HMRC tax dispute).

4.    How might all of this help my business?

We can aggressively pursue recovery of sums due to you by your debtors in the Sheriff Courts and in the Court of Session in Edinburgh.  As part of the claim, we can seek warrant to arrest/inhibit on the dependence of these Court actions, the application seeking to satisfy the same tests as in Mr. Bain’s case against Rangers. From experience, Courts are often willing to grant these warrants as long as they can see that the claim appears reasonably strong on paper and debtor’s finances weak.  Evidence of bad faith on the part of the debtor greatly assists, such as broken promises to pay.

If we obtain warrant, we can then freeze funds due to your debtor but in the hands of third parties, and (with warrant to inhibit) freeze property assets of the debtors.  This will then allow us to press on with the Court action in the knowledge that there should be sufficient funds available on conclusion of the case to recover your claim as and when it is ultimately successful.

Obtaining warrant to arrest/inhibit on the dependence can often be crucial to success in recovering debts where the debtor is in financial trouble. We recently secured over £150,000 for a client in this way. There are however additional and alternative approaches which can be adopted by us to recover your commercial debts. For example, we can serve a demand letter for payment on the debtor requiring payment within 48 hours under threat of liquidation.  We can thereafter Petition for the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator with a view to having a nominated accountant attend the debtor’s premises.  If full payment is not forthcoming quickly the debtor is then placed by us into full liquidation.  Demand letters (and petitioning for liquidation) are often successful if the debtor in question is fully able to pay but simply decides not to. 

My fellow Litigation Partner, David McElroy and myself will be delighted to help you with recovery of your commercial debts.  Please contact us to discuss how we can best assist you.

Gordon Bell
Partner
Dallas McMillan Solicitors
Tel 0141 333 6750

Many of you will have read recently in the Press about the compensation claim brought by a visitor to Niddrie Golf Club against both the Golf Club itself and the member golfer whose wayward tee shot hit him in the eye.

1. Summary of Case

The golfer visiting Niddrie Golf Club, Mr. Phee, was at the time of his accident walking on a path between the 6th green and 7th tee with the rest of his group.  Mr. Gordon meanwhile (a member of the golf club) was playing off the 18th tee.  Mr. Gordon tee’d off and unfortunately hit a poor tee shot which went way off-line and struck Mr. Phee in the eye.  Mr. Gordon had apparently shouted “fore” when he realised the direction in which his ball was heading.

Mr. Phee suffered a serious eye injury and raised a compensation claim in the Court of Session in Edinburgh.  After the Hearing on Evidence, the Court decided that Mr. Gordon was 70% to blame for the accident on the basis that (a) he was over-confident and had over-estimated his golfing skill, (b) in taking reasonable care for the safety of Mr. Phee he should have waited until Mr. Phee was further out of reasonable range of his tee shot before playing his shot.  Shouting “fore” was too late:  by that time Mr. Gordon had already been negligent.  The Golf Club was held 30% liable to Mr. Phee, on the basis that it had not carried out any risk assessment ,with the result that the Club had failed to put up relevant warning signs in that area of the golf course.  Mr. Phee meanwhile was held not at all to blame.  It was believed by the Court that he had ducked to an extent on hearing the shout “fore”.  It appears however that he would not have been blamed at all by the Court even if had he instinctively looked up in reaction to the warning.

2. What are the legal implications for normal Club Golfers?

This case is a timely warning to golfers.  I suspect virtually all golfers have in the past taken the decision to hit shots on several occasions when other players have been well within range of the shot, particularly if the shot was badly hooked or sliced.  Sometimes it is golfers ahead or golfers playing adjoining holes who are in range, but of course it is the golfer’s own playing partners who are closest and most obviously at risk.  All golfers have  a duty to take reasonable care when playing.  In analysing whether or not a golfer has taken reasonable care, the Court  will look carefully at the whole surrounding circumstances including (a) the distances and angles between the golfer and others, (b) the level of skill of the golfer, (c) the terrain of the course, and (d) the extent to which other people (including fellow golfers, groundsmen and members of the public for example on public paths or nearby roads) were within a reasonable distance of both the intended line of the shot and of shots veering off the intended path. 

In my view the only safe approach from a legal point of view is for golfers to be extremely vigilant, patient and as careful as possible on the course.  If in any doubt, the golfer should wait an additional period of time before hitting a shot, to ensure all others are completely out of range, whether it is other golfers, groundsmen working on the course or members of the public walking across the course or on public paths or driving on nearby roads.

3. What about Personal Insurance cover?

As can be seen from the liability incurred by Mr. Gordon to the unfortunate Mr. Phee, liability of golfers to third parties can arise at any time during a round of golf.  Furthermore, due to the nature of the game, injuries can be severe and potential liability can therefore be for a large five or even six figure sum, as was the case with Mr. Gordon’s liability to Mr. Phee.

As a result, all golfers would be well advised to ensure they have adequate personal insurance cover against potential liability.  You might wish to check with the Secretary of your own Club, as the Club’s own employers’/public liability insurance policy may extend to cover your own personal liability to third parties when playing golf. You should check carefully as to whether the terms of any such Club insurance cover provides a sufficient level of cover for you.  For example, this insurance cover could well be restricted to covering you playing on your own particular course only.  It might well not extend to cover you playing away from your own Club.   Note also that if you golf abroad, it is unlikely that the Golf Club insurance policy provides you any cover at all.  Your own travel insurance policy may or may not provide adequate cover. 

The simplest and safest way overall may well be to consider taking out your own personal golf insurance policy.  There are several insurers I understand offering a policy at a premium cost.

4. What about the legal position of Golf Clubs?

(a)    Duty of care of Golf Clubs

As can be seen from the attached case report, Golf Clubs have a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that no-one is injured by reason of the layout and condition of the golf course under their control.  Golf Clubs need to carry out a formal and comprehensive risk assessment on a regular basis of the course and assess the dangers to golfers and others created by their course.  Such an assessment should in turn lead to all reasonable steps being taken to prevent injuries to golfers, groundsmen, and members of the public. Common safety measures will include warnings signs on tees and on pathways between holes which are in range of tee shots and other general play, and also installation of bells for golfers to ring when reached, for example, when players behind have a “blind” shot.  Often the layout and alignment of holes need to be altered to reduce risk of injury to golfers and the public.  Fences are commonly put up to protect adjoining roads and properties.

Particular consideration needs to be given to dangers created by man-made hazards on the course.  An example of a man-made danger which I believe is often overlooked by Golf Clubs is the danger created on fairways by winter holes on temporary greens.  If these are not in use I believe they should be filled in, roped off or clearly signed.    Golf buggies are a more common sight on courses, many of which are hilly and not originally designed to cater for them.  Golf Clubs need to be careful here.  Are routes for buggies properly sign-posted?  Are potentially dangerous areas clearly marked?  Are bridges wide enough and do they have raised edges?

(b)     Can Golf Clubs by sued by their own members?

The answer depends on the way in which the Club is constituted.  If the Club is a traditional form of Club (an unincorporated society or association) then the answer is no.  This is because a member claiming against such a Club is from a legal point of view effectively suing him or herself.  In these circumstances a member could also not sue the Club trying to hold them liable for the negligence of an employee or servant of the Club who caused injury, and would be able only to sue the negligent individual personally.  Such a claim might or might not be covered by the Golf Clubs’ employers’ liability insurance. 

If on the other hand the Club is formed as a Limited Company, then it has a separate legal personality and can be sued by its own members.  A Club in these circumstances can also be held liable to the members for the negligence of its employees and servants. 

Note that visitors to a Golf Club can always sue the Club he/she is visiting as well as the golfer or negligent employee personally, as did Mr. Phee in the attached case. Here it does not matter how the Club is constituted.  

My fellow Litigation Partner, David McElroy and myself will be only too pleased to answer any queries on your behalf regarding the above or with regard to any personal injury compensation claim.

Gordon Bell
Partner and Law Society Accredited Specialist in Personal Injury Claims
Tel 0141 333 6750

A self-employed blacksmith and fabricator has been fined after one of his employees was severely injured when he fell more than seven metres from a roof he was working on.

Martin Mundie, 23, from Aberdeenshire, was part of a team carrying out work at a farm to convert a former pig shed into a workshop.

On 10th March 2009, Mr Mundie and three other workers climbed a ladder onto the roof to begin replacing the sheets and capping. A short time into the work, there was a loud crack and one of Mr Mundie's colleagues turned around to see him disappearing through a skylight. He fell approximately eight metres to the concrete floor below.

He sustained a broken arm and wrist, and needed a bone graft as well as two operations to insert three plates and six pins. He was off work for ten months and still has continuing pain in his arm with numbness and limited movement, as well as the scars left by his operations.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that at no time before work started, or while it was ongoing, had the employer assessed any of the risks involved or put a safe system of work in place. HSE inspectors also found that none of the workers had any safety provision while on the roof.

He was fined £4,500 after pleading guilty at an earlier hearing to breaching Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Falls from height are the most common cause of fatal injuries in the workplace. In 2009/10, 38 people in Britain died after work-related falls from height.

As part of its Eighth Programme of Law Reform, the Scottish Law Commission conducted a short-term project on partnership criminal liability, the results of which have now been published in the Commission's Report on the Criminal Liability of Partnerships.

The project was prompted by the failed prosecution following the fatal fire at the Rosepark nursing home in 2004. The nursing home was run by a partnership, which was dissolved after the fire, and attempts to indict the dissolved partnership, and/or the members of it, in relation to the causes of the fire were unsuccessful. It became clear that the traditional concepts of the law of partnership did not fit easily into the modern regulatory structure within which many of these organisations operate.

The Commission's report addresses this problem and recommends that it should remain competent to prosecute a partnership during a period of five years following its dissolution.

The Report also includes a draft Bill which would give effect to its recommendations.

In 2003, the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission published their joint report on Partnership Law. This recommended comprehensive reform of the law of partnership, including the circumstances and effects of dissolution. The Scottish Law Commission's preferred long-term solution to the issue identified in the Rosepark case would be the implementation by the UK Government of the recommendations in the joint report on Partnership law.

A company and its manager have been fined after two workers were engulfed in a fireball when they cut through a live 1,000 volt electrical cable at an industrial unit in Telford.

The two men had been told to find an underground water leak at an empty industrial unit owned by the company in Telford. They were instructed to dig at a spot outside the unit. Using an electrical drill, they drilled nearly 40cm into the ground until they hit a live 1,000 volt cable.

They were engulfed in a fireball and suffered burns to their hands, arms and faces. Both were airlifted to hospital and one of the men was so seriously injured that for the first few days, doctors believed he might not survive.

HSE's investigation into the incident found that the company had not assessed the risks involved, devised a safe system of work or obtained site plans of the area, checked whether there were any electrical cables underground or used safe digging methods. The two men had also received no training about the dangers arising from underground services.

The court also heard that in issuing instructions to the two men, the company manager had a duty to take reasonable care for their safety. Despite being aware of the guidance which details how to dig safely near underground services, he failed to ensure that proper precautions had been taken before telling them to start work.

The company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £4,420 costs. The manager pleaded guilty to breaching Section 7(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £1,000 costs.

A woman from Norfolk has been awarded over £9 million in compensation for injuries she received as a child, reports the BBC.

The woman, who is now aged 23, was hit by a car at the age of seven. She almost died as a result of the accident, and suffered severe brain damage that altered her personality and left her needing the constant supervision of two carers.

The insurers of the car driver had been found liable, and the woman has finally been awarded a lump sum of £2,875,000, plus index-linked annual payments of £191,758 for the rest of her life.

A housebuilder has been fined £20,000 after a young boy was seriously injured when some timber roof trusses fell onto him.

The eight year old boy was playing with friends when they got into an unsecured storage area on a construction site near Paisley. The development was nearing completion and the housebuilder, BDW Trading Ltd, had sold some of the finished houses and there were people living in them while work continued on the remaining homes. The young boy and his family had moved into one of these new houses.

As the children were playing in the storage area, some timber roof trusses fell onto the boy, trapping him underneath.

The boy sustained a serous injury to his liver and had abdominal bleeding, and was kept in hospital for eight days. In the months following the incident, he developed a number of anxiety-related symptoms such as nightmares and poor concentration.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the construction site was only partially fenced, and as a result there was a large gap at the side and rear which meant that the site could be easily accessed by members of the public, including children.

The investigation also revealed that the roof trusses had, at some point, been stacked upright which made them unstable and more likely to fall over.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Gerry McCulloch said:

"BDW Trading Ltd knew that families were living right next to of the construction site, and as such the safety of children should have been a primary consideration.

"If the company had taken the straightforward precaution of fencing off the construction site, the children would not have been able to get into the area and this young lad would not have received potentially life-threatening injuries."

The TUC has welcomed the Löfstedt report's conclusion that the UK's health and safety laws 'are broadly right', but it has major concerns that the proposals to exempt some self-employed workers could have a devastating impact on their safety.

The comments follow the Government's announcement that it intends to begin a major cut back of health and safety regulation as early as January next year, based on recommendations that have come out of the Löfstedt Review into health and safety legislation. 

The TUC is also disappointed that the report makes no suggestions as to how the protection of employees in the workplace could be improved.

Commenting on the Government-commissioned report, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said:

'Following last year's review by Lord Young, we've now seen yet another Government review into workplace safety that has concluded that the current system is generally fine.

'Unfortunately, like Lord Young, Professor Lofstedt was only asked to look at the 'burden' on business, not the burden that the failings in the current system have placed on the two million people whose health has been made worse because of their work. Nor has it considered the more than 20,000 people whose lives are cut short every year as a result of a preventable work-related injury or illness. Because of this, not one life will be saved as a result and not one injury or illness prevented. This is very much a missed opportunity.

'Instead the report proposes removing up to one million self-employed workers from the protection of current safety laws. These people, who often work in the most dangerous of jobs, are already much more likely to be killed or injured. There is little doubt that removing the self-employed from the regulations will increase their risk of illness and injury and lead to a rise in the number of bogus self-employed in sectors like construction."