Introduction

In the landmark case of HM Inspector of Health and Safety v. Chevron North Sea Ltd (Scotland) ([2018] WLR(D) 82), the United Kingdom Supreme Court addressed critical issues surrounding the appeal process under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The dispute arose when Chevron North Sea Ltd received a prohibition notice from HM Inspector of Health and Safety, asserting that corrosion on critical stairways posed a significant risk of serious personal injury. Chevron contested the notice, leading to an intricate legal battle that questioned the extent of evidence a tribunal can consider during an appeal. This commentary delves into the intricacies of the case, the court's reasoning, and its lasting impact on health and safety law in the UK.

Summary of the Judgment

In April 2013, HM Inspectors of Health and Safety inspected Chevron North Sea Ltd's offshore installation and identified corrosion on stairways leading to the helideck, leading to the issuance of a prohibition notice under section 22 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (the 1974 Act). Chevron appealed the notice to an employment tribunal under section 24 of the Act, arguing that the tribunal should only consider the information available to the inspector at the time the notice was served. The tribunal initially considered both the inspector's original findings and subsequent expert reports, ultimately cancelling the notice based on new evidence showing no actual risk. The Inspector appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session, which upheld the tribunal's decision, diverging from the Court of Appeal's earlier stance in a similar case, Rotary Yorkshire Ltd. The matter escalated to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the Inner House's broader interpretation, allowing tribunals to consider additional evidence beyond what was available to the inspector when the notice was issued.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references the earlier case of Hague v Rotary Yorkshire Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 696, where the Court of Appeal advocated for a restrictive interpretation of section 24, limiting tribunals to consider only the material known to inspectors at the time of issuing a notice. However, in Chevron North Sea Ltd, the Supreme Court departed from this precedent, endorsing the Inner House's broader approach. This shift marks a significant departure in legal interpretation, setting a new precedent that empowers tribunals to consider all relevant evidence, irrespective of its availability to inspectors at the time.

Legal Reasoning

The core legal debate centered on the interpretation of section 24 of the 1974 Act, which governs appeals against improvement or prohibition notices. Chevron contended that tribunals should be confined to reviewing the inspector's original evidence, maintaining the immediacy and authority of the notice. Conversely, HM Inspector argued for a restrictive approach, aligning with the Rotary Yorkshire Ltd decision. The Supreme Court, led by Lady Black, scrutinized the statutory language and the underlying purpose of the provisions. The Court reasoned that while the inspector acts with urgency and discretion based on available information, the appellate tribunal's role is to ensure justice by considering the complete picture, including evidence that may emerge post-issuance of the notice. This interpretation aligns with the overarching objectives of health and safety legislation, which seeks both prompt enforcement and fair adjudication. The Court further emphasized that allowing tribunals to consider additional evidence does not undermine the inspector's authority but rather complements it by ensuring that decisions are based on the most accurate and comprehensive information available.

Impact

This judgment significantly broadens the scope of appeals under section 24, granting tribunals greater flexibility to reassess decisions in light of new evidence. The implications are multifaceted:

• Enhanced Fairness: Employers gain a fairer opportunity to contest prohibition notices, potentially mitigating unwarranted disruptions based on incomplete or incorrect initial assessments.
• Judicial Efficiency: Tribunals must now be prepared to handle a wider range of evidence, possibly increasing the time and resources required for appeals.
• Regulatory Balance: While inspectors retain their authority to enforce safety measures promptly, the judiciary ensures that such powers are exercised judiciously and with due consideration of all pertinent facts.
• Future Case Law: This decision paves the way for future cases to adopt a more holistic approach in evaluating health and safety notices, influencing how evidence is gathered and presented in inspections and subsequent appeals.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Prohibition Notice

A prohibition notice is an official directive issued by health and safety inspectors that stops certain activities deemed unsafe. In this case, Chevron was instructed to halt operations on their offshore installation due to concerns about corroded stairways.

Section 24 Appeal

Section 24 of the 1974 Act allows companies to challenge improvement or prohibition notices in an employment tribunal. The central question is whether the tribunal should only consider the evidence available at the time the notice was issued or also take into account new evidence that emerges later.

Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974

This is a key piece of UK legislation that outlines the responsibilities of employers to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of their employees and others who may be affected by their work activities.