I'm not sure whether showing client in capitals in the subject was intended to suggest that they had been held responsible for the death of the contractor, when it was really the fault of the contractor. We all see cases where the independant contractor should really be held responsible, although the blame goes to the client that appointed them - perhaps on a "depest pockets" decision. Reading this article however, it appears that the client caused the death of the contractor on their premises so it appears correct that they should be held responsible.

Deceptive Headline

It implies that this is a case of a client being prosecuted under CDM. It’s not; it’s just an employer being prosecuted under Section 3 Health and Safety at Work Act because they did not manage their workplace properly. Routine stuff.