I am not sure if there are any, but wouldn't some S3 cases suffice? Associated Octel seems a likely case to use, but there are others as well.

RO

HSE enforcement on the issue of competence (as regards whoever has made appointments, not just PC) has been virtually non-existent as a search on its prosecutions database which has been live since April 1999 illustrates.

CDM 1994 Regulation 8 – 12 convictions (11 defendants) with the most recent in 2004.

CDM 2007 Regulation 4 – 11 convictions (10 defendants).

21 defendants in 15 years indicating a reluctance within HSE as regards it regulating on this issue.

Every single one of these convictions is just one of a prosecution case with other charges under e.g. HSWA, CDM, asbestos regulations, WAHR.

There would be very little incentive for any of these defendants to go to trial on a competence charge if intending to plead guilty to other charge(s).

One variant of the HSE Construction Sector business plan (2003/04 and possibly earlier) indicated that HSE would target national and local government, agencies and the top 350 PLCs as clients. So one might expect the prosecuted to include some substantial clients.

In practice, those convicted of charges relating to the competence requirements in CDM 1994 and 2007 have not included any substantial clients or contractors with the exception of two major contractors (13 years ago) and one semi-rural local authority.

Thanks folks,

The context is simply that I'm putting together a presentation for a construction business on duties of a principal contractor who wishes to subcontract works.

I don't want to quote a long list of applicable legislation without examples of enforcement.

That presentation should perhaps look ahead to HSE proposals for revised CDM Regs. CD 261 refers.

The HSE propose to remove current Regulation 4 and introduce a new Regulation to retain "a general requirement.... for those appointing others to carry out construction work to ensure that they have
received appropriate information, instruction, training and supervision to allow them to work
safely. This aligns with the general requirements under Sections 2 and 3 of HSWA."

See the thread O/P Eddie1 currently towards the bottom of page 3 here.

There has also been a case (and I wish I could recall it) where the judge was critical of an organisation (I can't recall if public, private or construction related) who had permitted the sub contracting of work, essentially to the lowest bidder, without adequate means to ensure competency or 'safety'. If I recall correctly the judge even said that the client should have known full well that the contract couldn't have been fulfilled 'safely' at that bid price.

Sorry, I know that's not all that helpful without the case to refer to.