Ministry of Justice Reforms 2013

The Ministry of Justice Reforms 2013 have now come into effect.  These are a whole string of changes, but the changes covered by this white paper cover the area of civil claims for injury or ill health that occurs in the workplace.

Summary of key changes are: No win no fee CFAs remain available in civil cases, but the additional costs involved (success fee and insurance premiums) are no longer payable by the losing side. No win no fee DBAs are available in civil litigation for the first time. Referral fees are banned in personal injury cases. The introduction of new protocols extending the Road Traffic Act personal injury scheme to £25,000. A new fixed recoverable costs (FRC) regime is introduced. Claimants' damages are protected: the fee that a successful claimant has to pay the lawyer - the lawyer's 'success fee' in CFAs, or 'payment' in DBAs - is capped at 25% of the damages recovered, excluding damages for future care and loss General damages for non-pecuniary loss such as pain, suffering and loss of amenity are increased by 10% A new regime of 'qualified one way costs shifting' (QOCS) is introduced in personal injury cases which caps the amount that claimants may have to pay to defendants. Claimants who lose, but whose claims are conducted in accordance with the rules, are protected from having to pay the defendant’s costs. A new sanction on defendants to encourage earlier settlement of claims.  There are new claim notification forms.  These differ slightly for injury and ill health but are otherwise similar.  They have effect for injuries sustained after 31st July 2013 or ill health that has not been notified by 31st July 2013.  You are required to respond immediately by e-mail as soon as you receive the form. This does not mean that you have to supply all the information immediately, but you must immediately acknowledge receipt of the form by e-mail.  “Immediately” is not defined, but you should assume that a response within 24 hours is appropriate. There are several unaddressed problems here; what happens if there is no e-mail address to which you should respond?, or what happens if the person to whom the form is sent is away for several days, as is quite likely?  You could argue about delays in response in such cases, but you would be in a very exposed situation if you sat on the notification and did not respond within what could be argued is an “immediate” period.

Claim notification form

Missing fixed guard on printing press almost causes finger amputation

A Norwich printing firm has been fined for safety failings after a worker injured his finger in an unguarded machine.

The circumstances were:

• The employee was working for Swallowtail Print Ltd., when the incident happened on
  1 November 2012.
• He opened a service compartment at the side of a printing press to make some adjustments.
• A fixed metal guard had been removed from the compartment five weeks earlier by other employees who were also making machine adjustments and had not been replaced.
•  As he leant in, he slipped and put his hand out, which became entangled in the machine's moving drive belts and pulleys, almost severing his right index finger.

Swallowtail Print Ltd was fined £9,850 (inc. costs and victim surcharge) on 28 August 2013.

The HSE Inspector said:

"This incident was entirely foreseeable and therefore preventable. The risks to employees from exposed machinery are well known. Had Swallowtail Print Ltd met its duties, it would not have been possible for the employee to have accessed moving parts of machinery in this way and an injury would not have occurred."

How to check air conditioner refrigerant types

This is what you need to check on your air-conditioners.

Then refer to Technical Paper 10 from SSS  to check if you've got an F gas. Plan to replace it (before 1/1/2015) if you've got an F gas. (R22 is the most common one.)

Make sure that you specify CE marking on all machines from outside the EU

This shows a brand new machine installed at a printing company. However, it was purchased from Canada and appears to have no CE mark. As the organisation that introduced the machine for first time use into the EU, the printing company now must go through the process of CE marking this. They were unaware of this. Note that this applies to even old machines.

Lesson:

Ensure that your purchase specification states that the supplier must CE mark it.

Note that SSS provide CE marking service support.

See what CE marking is all about.

Pirelli fined £24,000 after worker breaks arm during maintenance operation

Tyre manufacturer Pirelli has appeared in court after an employee sustained major injuries to his left arm when it became trapped in a tyre-testing machine.

The circumstances were:

• On 3 January 2012, there was a fault on the machine, which lubricates, inflates and then measures tyres, which occurred when it was switched back on following the Christmas shutdown.
• The fault had occurred several times in the past after the machine was restarted following previous Christmas shutdowns.
• Pirelli had failed to carry out a specific risk assessment for this maintenance work.
• There was limited supervision of the maintenance employees
• General knowledge of the company's written health and safety procedures was poor. 
• There was no system in place to check that the company's Safe Working Procedures guidelines were being followed in practice.
• The worker was trying to fix this fault.
• He switched it to manual mode and removed one of the guards to repair the fault in the lubricating part of the machine. The employee then returned the machine to automatic mode and it processed two tyres successfully before becoming struck again.
• Without thinking, he reached back into the machine which then began operating, trapping his arm.
• He broke his arm in three places

Pirelli Tyres Ltd, was fined £24,330 (inc. costs) on 21 August 2013.

The HSE Inspector said:

"A moment's lapse in concentration left an employee with major injuries to his left arm because Pirelli's management of the risks from maintenance work wasn't good enough. The fault with the machine had occurred before, following previous Christmas breaks, but the company didn't have a specific risk assessment in place to make sure it could be fixed safely. Although Pirelli did have written Safe Working Procedures, they were not effective because the employees were either unaware of them or weren't following them, and no effort was made to check that the procedures were being followed. This incident could have been avoided if Pirelli had done more to make sure that risks were being properly assessed and its employees were following safe working practices."

Another example of an unguarded conveyor

A Suffolk firm has been fined for safety failings after a worker suffered serious injuries to his arm when it became trapped in unguarded machinery.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on  20 September 2012, on an unguarded conveyor for bagging rice.
• The conveyor had been at the company since 2006.
• In April 2009, the HSE advised the company to install guards on this part of the machine.
• The company failed to adequately act on this advice.
• Attila Czege became trapped and entangled in the conveyor. 
• His right arm was dragged in and around a large roller at the end of the conveyor, trapping his whole arm.
• Mr Czege sustained fractures to his upper and lower arm and underwent surgery three times in two weeks to repair the damage. 

Indo European Foods Ltd, was fined £18,500 (inc. costs and victim surcharge). 

The HSE Inspector said:

"The risk presented by this conveyor was evident given the working processes involved on the production line. The dangers associated with conveyors are well known throughout industry and the guarding of dangerous moving parts is a fundamental element of mechanical safety. Conveyors are involved in 30 per cent of all machinery incidents in the food/drink industries and nine out of ten conveyor injuries occur on flat belt conveyors. This incident could have easily been avoided as action to guard the machine adequately was quick and inexpensive. It is disappointing that Indo European Foods Ltd failed to satisfactorily heed the earlier advice of HSE. Instead, Mr Czege suffered a serious and painful injury which resulted in several months off work."

Company fined for lack of insurance

A Sunderland firm has been fined for failing to hold statutory insurance that enables employees to claim compensation should they be injured at work.

Sun Spirit Ltd did not hold any Employer's Liability Compulsory Insurance between 9 Feb and 13 December 2012. 

This meant the firm, which provides and installs solar panels, was not insured against liability for bodily injury or disease sustained by their employees resulting from their work.

Sun Spirit Ltd of Quay Court, Sunderland, was fined £1600 ( inc. costs).

The HSE inspector said:

"As well as being a legal requirement, Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance offers important protection for employers and employees alike. Failure to have such insurance could leave any employee who is injured or suffers ill health because of their work unable to get any compensation for their suffering. The failure of employers to insure is seen as a serious matter and HSE will continue to take legal action where appropriate."