This recent English appeal court judgment serves as a timely reminder for the hotel and hospitality industry of the importance of complying with the obligations set out in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (and associated regulations).
The Weymouth Dorset hotel, which was being run by LFH Moonfleet Manor Ltd, was having its roof renovated on 13 June 2019 when a slate fell around five metres before hitting a toddler on the head as she was leaving the building. The toddler was hospitalised and had to undergo surgery.
Following the incident, the hotel was fined £200,000 because of its failures to ensure the safety of guests contrary to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 Pt I s.3(1) and s.33(1)(a).
This case presents several useful learning points, both from the point of view of how this accident could have been avoided and the relevant considerations on appeal.
An accident waiting to happen
In 2018, the slate roof of the hotel was identified as needing to be replaced. The works to do so began in early 2019.
In the area where the incident occurred (known as the 'pinch-point'), pedestrians accessing the hotel swimming pool could walk next to the scaffolding. The slates were stacked in piles on the roof trusses and only minor precautions were taken against their potential falling, exposing individuals to severe health and safety risks.
What lessons can be learned?
The prosecution described the incident as "an accident waiting to happen". There were several points at which action should have been taken:
- The 'pinch-point' had been identified at an early stage by the appointed contractors.
- These concerns were brought to the attention of the hotel management. Those concerns should have been acted upon.
- On two occasions, temporary alternative routes through the hotel were identified. The routes were only temporary because the hotel was concerned about the inconvenience to its residents.
- The obviousness of the risk was underlined by a near miss.
- An alternative route should and would have easily eliminated the risk. The fact that it was set up almost immediately after the accident demonstrated how easily this could have been done.
- After repeated warnings, the hotel was well aware of the risk but chose to ignore it.
Appeal
The appellant hotel operator appealed the fine on the grounds that the conviction was unjustified and the fine was inappropriate considering the circumstances and financial status of the appellant.
The appeal was dismissed on 11 March 2025. The judge concluded the following:
- the offence of the hotel was a significant cause of the harm suffered by the child since the appellant failed to deter visitors and guests away from the 'pinch-point';
- in considering the England and Wales sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences, the upward adjustment of the harm to a category 1 (i.e. where the most serious harm outcome is identified) was appropriate since the fine should reflect the extent to which the appellant fell below the necessary standards; and
- the fact that the appellant had incurred an operating loss in the two previous years in no way undermined the judge's conclusion that the penalty imposed was proportionate to the offence.
This case highlights that health and safety fines can and will be substantial enough to punish and deter the individual or organisation that committed the offence. As this case makes plain, the accident (and the ultimate prosecution) was entirely avoidable if the hotel management had properly considered the risks caused by the remedial works and taken timely steps to eliminate those risks.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
