Building companies fined £110k over "one of the worst" electrical blunders

Saturday 21 August 2021

Two companies have been fined £55,000 each for failing to disconnect a live cable before demolishing a Bath Street building in a safety blunder an engineer said could have led someone to be “seriously injured or killed”.

Both contractor Camerons Limited and demolition and groundworks specialist DB Cummins Limited were also ordered to pay £5,000 towards the prosecution after their Health and Safety Law breach, which they had previously admitted.

Crown Advocate Chris Baglin told the Royal Court yesterday that DB Cummins had been sub-contracted by Camerons to demolish buildings as part of the redevelopment project at 78 to 92 Bath Street, which is due to make way for a £70m development including accommodation and a new Premier Inn.

The incident at heart of the Royal Court case occurred during the demolition of 82 Bath Street on 29 July.

Pictured: The incident took place during demolition works as part of the redevelopment project at 78 to 92 Bath Street.

The work couldn’t be completed as planned on 7 July because scaffolding prevented JEC workers from accessing the cable under the pavement.

Camerons advised DB Cummins of the situation and told them the live cable would be isolated on Friday 10 July. However, the cable had still not been disconnected before the demolition started on 29 July and a disconnection certificate was not issued, although one had been issued for the building.

DB Cummins’ Managing Director, Pierce Cummins, was told by a Camerons employee that the cable was still there on 28 July, but neither Mr Cummins nor Camerons told the demolition employees and they started the demolition the following day.

The Court heard the building was demolished by machine, contrary to the method statement agreed between both companies. During the process, the live cable, which had remained on the façade attached to the junction box, was severed.

When the Project Manager for Camerons inspected the site, he saw a severed cable amongst the rubble with the other side still attached to the junction box. The site was then shut down and JEC called to make it safe.

It was only discovered afterwards that the cable in the rubble was not live but, on the day, JEC had to cut off the power supply to the area to allow the safe excavation of the live cable, leaving a number of local businesses and residents without electricity for several hours.

Pictured: Both companies appeared in Royal Court for the Health and Safety breach.

The JEC engineer who visited the site described the potential harm as “one of the worst scenarios” he had been involved with.

“There was no real way of knowing where the live cable was in amongst the rubble of the demolished building,” he said.

“Workers or any other persons on the site who came into contact with the live cable before I pulled the fuses would have been seriously injured and possibly killed.”

Representing Camerons, Advocate William Grace, said that, while the company admitted the infraction, the Crown had “overstated the seriousness of the case, and suggested a total penalty of £50,000 fine would be “very significant”.

“It can’t the worst possible example of this type of case,” he said. “It is not an extreme case, and it does not deserve the extreme sentence the Crown moves for.”

Advocate Grace argued that Camerons’ level of culpability was in the “normal of moderate bracket” instead of high as the Crown Advocate had suggested.

He rejected the view that they had failed to heed warnings and reminded the Court that the breach hadn’t been prompted by financial gain.

While the Crown Advocate had mentioned previous health and safety breaches committed by Camerons, Advocate Grace said that, given the company had been in existence for several years, it was not unusual for such incidents to arise. to be on the record. He noted that previous breaches were not related to electricity and that there was therefore no pattern in the previous breaches, arguing they shouldn’t be treated as an aggravating feature.

Pictured: The 'unsafe' demolition took place on Bath Street.

Advocate Adam Harrison, representing DB Cummins, said the company recognised the incident was “serious” and took full responsibility for its “failings”. He however added the fine was too high and that it would be “wrong” to impose the same fine on both companies, as Camerons were the principal contractor with overall responsibility for the site and “first-hand knowledge of JEC work”.

He argued Camerons should have ensured “all services were cut off” to the six buildings DB Cummins had been contracted to demolish. While the company knew Camerons had spoken to JEC about the issue, he said they expected the work to be completed before the demolition and had not been informed otherwise.

Advocate Harrison said the fact Mr Cummins hadn’t informed his workers of the presence of the cable had been an “oversight”, suggesting that if he had been informed earlier, he would have been in a better place to address the issue.

Advocate Harrison also explained that, given the pavement located near the scaffolding was blocked off from the public, passers-by wouldn’t have been at risk if it had become electrified.

He also noted that DB Cummins’ previous breach was 14 years old and suggested the proper fine should be worth two-thirds of Camerons’.

The case was heard by Lieutenant Bailiff Anthony Olsen, sitting with Jurats Rozanne Thomas and Robert Christensen, who concluded that the case was "very serious" but that the companies’ degree of culpability was “medium” as they had not committed a “deliberate or flagrant” breach of the law.

However, they concluded that both were equally culpable in different ways for the incident and fined them £55,000 each, as well as ordering them to pay £5,000 towards the prosecution's costs within a week.

Following the sentencing, the Managing Director of Camerons, Simon Silbernagl, issued a statement on behalf of the company.

"Camerons is absolutely committed to health and safety," he said. "While we acknowledge that we have fallen below our own high standards on this occasion, we have enhanced our processes in this area."