This case has been cited at some length to provide her Ladyship’s reasoning, although the authority of the decision (and the reasoning) is doubtful, following the House of Lord’s decision in the Octel case, cited immediately below. It may, however, be significant that the Octel premises where the accident occurred was a major hazard installation, so that Octel had particular responsibilities to ensure that work undertaken there was carried out safely. R v ASSOCIATED OCTEL LTD [1996] 1 WLR 1543 The following is taken from the speech of Lord Hoffmann, beginning at p 1545:

doi:10.4324/9781843140504-179

Chapter

This case has been cited at some length to provide her Ladyship’s reasoning, although the authority of the decision (and the reasoning) is doubtful, following the House of Lord’s decision in the Octel case, cited immediately below. It may, however, be significant that the Octel premises where the accident occurred was a major hazard installation, so that Octel had particular responsibilities to ensure that work undertaken there was carried out safely. R v ASSOCIATED OCTEL LTD [1996] 1 WLR 1543 The following is taken from the speech of Lord Hoffmann, beginning at p 1545:

Chapter

This case has been cited at some length to provide her Ladyship’s reasoning, although the authority of the decision (and the reasoning) is doubtful, following the House of Lord’s decision in the Octel case, cited immediately below. It may, however, be significant that the Octel premises where the accident occurred was a major hazard installation, so that Octel had particular responsibilities to ensure that work undertaken there was carried out safely. R v ASSOCIATED OCTEL LTD [1996] 1 WLR 1543 The following is taken from the speech of Lord Hoffmann, beginning at p 1545:

ABSTRACT

The appellants, Associated Octel Co Ltd (‘Octel’), operate a large chemical plant at Ellesmere Port. On 25 June 1990 there was an accident at the chlorine works. The plant was shut down for its annual maintenance and a small firm of specialist contractors called Resin Glass Products (‘RGP’) were engaged in repairing the lining of a tank. Mr Cuthbert, an employee of RGP, was working in the tank by the light of an electric light bulb attached to a lead. After grinding the damaged area of the lining he had to clean it down with acetone before applying a fibreglass matting patch with resin. He had his supply of acetone in an old paint bucket which he had found in a refuse bin. While he was applying the acetone with a brush, the light bulb broke. Some of the liquid had probably dripped onto it. Acetone is volatile and gives off highly inflammable vapour. As Mr Cuthbert was using an open bucket, there was a good deal of vapour in the tank. The broken bulb caused a flash fire in which Mr Cuthbert was badly burned.