HSE v. Vijay Kara

A developer and a contractor from north London, whose poor working practices left a Polish construction worker, Pawel Szczotka, permanently disabled, were fined a total of £110,000 and ordered to pay £165,000 in costs at Croydon Crown Court, following an investigation and prosecution by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE).

The incident took place on 16 March 2005 at a building site by the North Circular Road in Brent, London. A warehouse was being built by local developer Gargreen Ltd using its associated contractor Euro’s (London) Ltd, both based at the North Circular Road address. Workers were moving a two-ton concrete slab into position in the warehouse by rolling it across a mezzanine floor on metal tubes. The slab became jammed while it was being placed on the steel frame of the floor. Mr Szczotka and a colleague went under the slab in order to push it up into position on the frame using a prop. When Mr Szczotka attempted to jack up the slab, it fell on him.

Mr Szczotka, who is 33 and married with three young children, suffered major crush and fracture injuries to his pelvis and legs. More than two years on, he is still severely disabled, and medical experts doubt his ability to ever work again. He came to Britain as a migrant worker just weeks before the incident and, despite having no previous training or experience working on a construction site, he was employed by the contractor, paid cash in hand, and was not provided with any training.

HSE Inspector Simon Hester, who investigated the incident, said: “The working methods that were used in this case were not acceptable. Companies must ensure safe systems of work are in place to prevent this type of incident, and to ensure that this does not happen again.

“This case also highlights the risks that migrant workers can be exposed to when unaware of employers’ health and safety responsibilities and their own rights. The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 protects the rights of all workers regardless of their origin. Workers can find out more about their rights, and report incidents or bad practice by calling 0845 345 0055 in confidence.”

The client for the project, Gargreen Ltd, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £10,000 after pleading guilty to a breach of regulation 6 of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 for failing to appoint a Planning Supervisor to oversee safety requirements on the construction site.

The principal contractor building the warehouse, Euro’s (London) Ltd, was found guilty of breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for failing to ensure that a safe system of work was in place and for inadequate training and supervision of the work. The company had also pleaded guilty to a breach of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 1995 as they did not report the incident to HSE as required. The court imposed a total fine of £100 and ordered no costs to be paid.

Mr Vijay Kara, a director of both Euro’s (London) Ltd and Gargreen Ltd, and who played a direct role in managing the construction work on the site, was charged with an offence under Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 which alleged that the breaches by both companies were a result of his own personal negligence. The court found him guilty and he was fined £99,900 and ordered to pay costs of £150,000. Mr Kara was told he had six months to pay or he would face a custodial sentence.

During sentencing Judge Pratt said: “This was a case of putting a saving of money before the safety of the workers. I am convinced that you Mr Kara were playing every trick in the book to evade your responsibilities.”

Notes to editors
1.Regulation 6 (1)(a) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 requires the client for a notifiable project to appoint a planning supervisor for the project.
2.Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states that “it shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees”.
3.Section 2(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states:

“Without prejudice to the generality of an employer’s duty under the preceding subsection (2(1), the matters to which that duty extends include in particular:

(a) the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are,
so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health;

(c) the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision
as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the
health and safety at work of his employees;

(e) the provision and maintenance of a working environment for his employees
that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe, without risks to
health, and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare
at work.”
4.The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) require employers and others to report accidents and some diseases that arise out of or in connection with work. These reports enable the enforcing authorities to identify where and how risks arise and to investigate serious accidents.
5.Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 requires that where an offence under relevant health and safety legislation by a company is proved to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of a director, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
6.In the magistrates court the maximum fine for breaches of regulations is £5,000 and for convictions under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 it is £20,000. On referral to the Crown Court the maximum fine is unlimited.