top of page
  • Writer's pictureRobert Spicer

Workplace injury: fingers amputated: company fined

Serious hand injuries: construction company fined

Health and Safety Executive v Coldmac Ltd (2017) Nuneaton magistrates’ court, March 28

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

Coldmac Ltd, a construction company, has been fined following an incident in which a worker suffered serious hand injuries.

The facts

· The company was engaged as specialist contractor for a new footway. In April 2015 a worker was using a screwdriver to scrape asphalt residue from a mixer. The screwdriver slipped and the worker caught his hand on the mixer. Two of his fingers were severed.

· The guarding on the mixer was below the safety standards required for workers to operate the machinery safely.

The decision

The company was fined £6000 plus £1900 under regulation 11 of PUWER.

An HSE inspector commented after the case that it highlighted the importance of safely checking equipment and machinery, ensuring that employers had appropriate guarding to avoid serious injuries.

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