top of page
  • Writer's pictureRobert Spicer

Plymouth mobile elevated work platform death: compnay fined £130,000

Mobile elevated platform death: £130,000 fine

Health and Safety Executive v Pyeroy Ltd (2017) Plymouth magistrates’ court, June 16

Statutory reference: regulation 4 of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 (WAH).

Pyeroy Ltd, a contractor, has been fined after a worker was killed.

The facts

· Keith Stevens was working for the company at Devonport Naval base. he was using a mobile elevated work platform (MEWP) to dismantle temporary roofing. He became trapped between a roof beam and the controls of the MEWP. He died of a pre-existing heart condition.

· The company had not properly planned the MEWP work in restricted overhead areas.

· Other employees had not been suitably trained in the emergency lowering procedure of the elevated platforms and no practice drills had been carried out.

The decision

The company was fined £130,000 plus £14,000 under regulation 4 of WAH.

An HSE inspector commented after the case that it highlighted the need for duty holders to properly plan all work at height beforehand, including emergency planning and rescue situations.

Recent Posts

See All


Limitation Case TVZ v Manchester City Football Club Ltd [2022] EWHC 7, Hugh Court Facts Eight men who had been sexually abused by a football coach in the 1980s claimed compensation in negligence fro

Crown immunity and the rule of law (3)

Civil proceedings Until 1948 the Crown could not be made a party to a civil action. This was an offshoot of the principle of sovereign immunity. The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 changed this rule. The C

Crown immunity and the rule of law (2)

Recent examples In June 2018 prison officers were taking part in a petrol bomb training exercise. This was part of an eight-day commanders course at the National Tactical Response Group training facil


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page