top of page
  • Writer's pictureRobert Spicer

Workplace hand injuries: company fined £300,000

Hand crush injuries: £300,000 fine

Health and Safety Executive v Heathcoat Fabrics Ltd (2017) Exeter magistrates’ court, August 22

Statutory reference: regulation 11of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER).

The facts

· In August 2014 Anthony Seward, an employee of Heathcoat Fabrics, a textile company, was preparing a piece of machinery for the next shift when his hand was drawn into rotating rollers. He suffered severe crush injuries to his hand and four of his fingers were partially amputated.

· The company had failed to safeguard dangerous machinery. It had provided a guard but when it ceased to function it was not repaired but instead was replaced with an emergency stop wire.

· The wire was kept in place for more than two years and was replaced th day after the incident.

The decision

The company was fined £300,000 plus £2800 costs under regulation 11 of PUWER.

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