- within Transport topic(s)
2025 was a significant year for health and safety enforcement in the UK, as a number of high-profile prosecutions highlighted the serious consequences of failing to manage foreseeable risks. The Health and Safety Executive's most recent annual report confirmed there were 246 prosecutions for the period 2024/2025. This article briefly looks at five that are particularly worthy of attention because they provide valuable insight into how the HSE (and the courts) assesses risk, enforcement thresholds and culpability – particularly where incidents are considered preventable.
The sectors vary widely, but the message is the same: long-standing safety principles must be properly implemented, reviewed, and maintained.
Cambridgeshire County Council
In April, Cambridgeshire County Council was fined £6 million, with £292,460.90 in costs, after pleading guilty to two offences under section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The prosecution followed a long-running HSE investigation into serious and systemic safety failures on the Cambridge Guided Busway, a major public transport system where buses run at speed on a dedicated concrete track, often alongside routes used by pedestrians and cyclists.
Over the previous ten-years, three people were killed and at least two others seriously injured in incidents that the HSE concluded were entirely preventable. During this time the council operated the busway without basic safety measures, including adequate lighting at crossing points, appropriate speed limits, effective physical separation between buses and other users, and clear warning signage. Despite a fatality in 2015, the first risk assessment was not carried out until 2016, several years after the busway opened.
The regulator was particularly critical of the council's decision to appeal enforcement action rather than act on identified risks, during which time further fatal and life-changing incidents occurred. The scale of the fine reflects both the seriousness of the harm and the prolonged nature of the failures, and serves as a stark reminder that where risks are foreseeable – especially in public infrastructure – delay and inaction can have devastating human and legal consequences.
British Airways
In May, British Airways was fined more than £3 million, plus £20,935 in costs, after pleading guilty to two charges under Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. The prosecution followed two separate incidents at Heathrow Airport, in which baggage handlers fell from height while unloading aircraft and sustained life-changing injuries.
The HSE found that gaps between aircraft fuselages and televator platforms created a clear and foreseeable fall risk. The size of these gaps varied depending on aircraft type, and had increased following modifications to the platforms, yet adequate control measures were not in place. In one of the incidents a worker fell 1.5 metres; in the other a worker fell approximately three metres, suffering head injuries including a fractured jaw and bleeding on the brain. The HSE said that both of them were "fortunate to be alive".
The regulator was particularly critical given that falls from height are a well-known and heavily regulated risk, and that British Airways had already engaged with the HSE on these hazards prior to the incidents. The case underlines the importance of ensuring that safety measures are not only designed but consistently implemented in time-pressured environments such as aircraft ground handling.
TATA Steel
In July, Tata Steel (UK) Ltd was fined £1.5 million, plus £26,318.67 in costs, after pleading guilty to breaches of sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The prosecution followed the death of a contractor at the company's Port Talbot steelworks plant, one of the UK's largest and highest-risk industrial sites.
The HSE found that basic health and safety failures meant a conveyor system was not fully isolated or adequately guarded while maintenance work was being carried out to replace a lift cylinder. As a result, the contractor was crushed by moving machinery. The HSE concluded that the risks associated with the work were well known, and that effective isolation and safeguarding measures should have been in place.
In sentencing, the court heard that the incident was entirely preventable. An HSE inspector described the failings as "basic", emphasising that long-established principles around lock-off, isolation and contractor management had not been followed. The case demonstrates the potentially devastating consequences of failing to apply fundamental safety controls in high-hazard environments, particularly where contractors are involved.
Shell UK
In November, Shell UK Limited was fined £560,000 after pleading guilty to two offences under the Offshore Installations (Prevention of Fire and Explosion, and Emergency Response) Regulations 1995. The prosecution followed a major uncontrolled hydrocarbon release on the Brent Charlie platform in the North Sea, which placed more than 170 offshore workers at risk of a potentially catastrophic fire or explosion.
The HSE found that pipework intended for short-term use had been left in place for seven years without adequate inspection or maintenance, during which time it suffered severe corrosion. When the pipework failed in May 2017, it resulted in the largest uncontrolled hydrocarbon release reported to the HSE that year, involving approximately 1,750kg of gas and crude oil in a confined space. Ventilation systems designed to mitigate such risks were also found to be inadequately maintained, significantly increasing the potential severity of the incident.
The case exposed deficiencies in Shell's safety management processes, particularly around temporary equipment and inspection regimes. While the effective emergency response prevented escalation, the court noted that the risk was foreseeable and long-standing. The prosecution serves as a clear reminder for oil and gas duty holders of the importance of reviewing their current maintenance and corrosion management systems, so that any failures do not quickly escalate into events that could have catastrophic consequences.
Power and Energy International
In December, Power and Energy International Ltd, a manufacturing firm in Newbury, was fined £187,600, with £7,464 in costs, after an 18-year-old apprentice suffered serious injuries while operating machinery. The company pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
The incident occurred while the apprentice was still learning to operate a radial-arm drill, when his clothing became caught in the rotating machinery and he was pulled in. He sustained multiple broken ribs and severe chest injuries, required skin grafts, and was unable to work for several months. He has been left with permanent scarring and loss of sensation.
The HSE investigation found that the drill lacked adequate guarding, that the apprentice had not been properly trained in the machine's safety features, and that modifications to the equipment had increased the risk of entanglement. The case underlines the heightened duties owed to young and inexperienced workers and serves as a reminder that effective guarding, training and supervision are fundamental when operating dangerous machinery.
Looking ahead
These prosecutions illustrate a continued and consistent focus by the HSE on foreseeable risk, fundamental control failures and the effective implementation of safety systems. In many of the cases above, the regulator was clear that the risks were well-known, long-standing and capable of being addressed through established health and safety principles.
As enforcement activity continues into 2026 and beyond, organisations should take note. The cases from 2025 serve as a timely reminder that early intervention, rather than reactive compliance following an incident, remains the most effective way to protect people, reputations and businesses.
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.
