R v SWAN HUNTER SHIPBUILDERS LTD AND TELEMETER INSTALLATIONS LTD [1981] IRLR 403 HMS Glasgow was under construction in Swan Hunter’s shipyard when a fire broke out in the ship and eight men were killed. The fire occurred, when welding was being carried out by the employees of contractors engaged by Swan Hunter, because the atmosphere had become oxygen enriched as a result of a leaking oxygen cylinder. The question before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was whether Swan Hunter were in breach of the duties imposed upon them by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Their Lordships had to decide whether the shipbuilders had to take any steps to ensure that the employees of contractors operated safely. The criminal court had no hesitation in adopting a large part of a judgment from an earlier civil case. The following extract is from the judgment of Dunn LJ:

doi:10.4324/9781843140504-35

Chapter

R v SWAN HUNTER SHIPBUILDERS LTD AND TELEMETER INSTALLATIONS LTD [1981] IRLR 403 HMS Glasgow was under construction in Swan Hunter’s shipyard when a fire broke out in the ship and eight men were killed. The fire occurred, when welding was being carried out by the employees of contractors engaged by Swan Hunter, because the atmosphere had become oxygen enriched as a result of a leaking oxygen cylinder. The question before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was whether Swan Hunter were in breach of the duties imposed upon them by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Their Lordships had to decide whether the shipbuilders had to take any steps to ensure that the employees of contractors operated safely. The criminal court had no hesitation in adopting a large part of a judgment from an earlier civil case. The following extract is from the judgment of Dunn LJ:

Chapter

R v SWAN HUNTER SHIPBUILDERS LTD AND TELEMETER INSTALLATIONS LTD [1981] IRLR 403 HMS Glasgow was under construction in Swan Hunter’s shipyard when a fire broke out in the ship and eight men were killed. The fire occurred, when welding was being carried out by the employees of contractors engaged by Swan Hunter, because the atmosphere had become oxygen enriched as a result of a leaking oxygen cylinder. The question before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was whether Swan Hunter were in breach of the duties imposed upon them by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Their Lordships had to decide whether the shipbuilders had to take any steps to ensure that the employees of contractors operated safely. The criminal court had no hesitation in adopting a large part of a judgment from an earlier civil case. The following extract is from the judgment of Dunn LJ:

ABSTRACT

HMS Glasgow was under construction in Swan Hunter’s shipyard when a fire broke out in the ship and eight men were killed. The fire occurred, when welding was being carried out by the employees of contractors engaged by Swan Hunter, because the atmosphere had become oxygen enriched as a result of a leaking oxygen cylinder. The question before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was whether Swan Hunter were in breach of the duties imposed upon them by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Their Lordships had to decide whether the shipbuilders had to take any steps to ensure that the employees of contractors operated safely. The criminal court had no hesitation in adopting a large part of a judgment from an earlier civil case. The following extract is from the judgment of Dunn LJ:

Mr Potts, for the Crown, submitted that there was nothing revolutionary or novel in the duties imposed by ss 2-3 of the 1974 Act. He pointed out that before 1974 there was a duty on the main contractor to co-ordinate the operations at a place of work, so as to ensure the safety not only of his own employees, but also the employees of subcontractors. He referred us to McArdle v Andmac Roofing Co and Others (1967).3 That was a case involving building works and the plaintiff was employed by one of two sets of subcontractors in roofing. He was injured by reason of the negligence of the other firm of subcontractors. Another company, called Pontin (Contractors) Ltd, although not apparently the main contractors, were in charge of the work and responsible to the building owners for its supervision. It was held that as Pontins were employing subcontractors who worked in proximity with one another, Pontins assumed the duty of co-ordinating the work and were thus under a duty to see that reasonable safety precautions were taken for the other contractors’ men on the job.