Somebody did something wrong, or omitted to do something right, but get away.

http://www.shponline.co.uk/judge-acknowledges-insulting-fine-after-electricians-death/?cid=ema-Marketing-28%20October%202016%20-%20SHP%20Daily%20Update-CTA-

I wonder why the director(s) were not individually prosecuted.

But in this case the work planner did not ensure that the electrical supply at the school was isolated before the work was undertaken, surely that was negligence by someone.

JohnW

Unfortunately we don't know all the facts; whoever did the risk assessment, didn't appear to have considered the hazard - electricity, so he didn't foresee the guy cutting the sheeting and the cable and so getting electrocuted; or he may have foreseen it. Although I am in no way making excuses for whoever did the risk assessment or planned the work, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and I think we all would like some of that.

It may have been in the RAMS, and was down to the victim to arrange for the power to be isolated - we don't know; but in any case the company was found not to have ensure the power wasn't isolated, whoevers responsibility it was.

Originally Posted by: RayRapp

The summary of the case does not really indicate the level of culpability by the organisation. That said, by virtue of them going into liquidation does appear to be rather convenient.

There was a call for a Bill in parliament to prevent these so-called 'Phoenix' companies from re-starting after going into voluntary liquidation but nothing seems to have come of it. I think it is morally repugnent companies should choose to go into voluntary liquidation to avoid justice. This is the type of practice which IOSH should actively lobby against...enough said. 

The pros and cons of limited liability are a big issues and to be honest a political hot potato. It’s not just an H&S matter; loads of business large and small hid behind the “corporate veil” and avoid their (at least moral) responsibilities. This involves anything from pension funds, to companies that take loads of orders in the weeks running up to Christmas and then go bust just before they are  expected to deliver them, to fly by night builders etc.

It’s big issue because the principle of limited liability is one of the bedrocks of modern western capitalism. Before it was established in the 1850’s the owners of businesses were held completely liable for the actions of the business, in both civil and criminal law. But as the business world grew in size and complexity ( for example the growth of the railways) it was felt that it would be easier to attract investment if the investors only had a limited financial liability in the  business equal to the sum of money they had invested. This definitely increased the growth in large businesses but it also created the sort of problems that we can see here. Many people agree something needs to change but not everybody can agree on what exactly needs to change and how this can be balanced with the requirement to keep up investment in business. On possibility is that if a business is fined then the directors (not ordinary investors) become liable for the fine, even if the amount is above and beyond their original investment.