In 2015 CAV Aerospace was successfully prosecuted for corporate manslaughter following the death of an employee of a subsidiary CAV Cambridge.

The defence tried to argue that all of the responsibility lay with the subsidiary company but the prosecution proved that all operational decisions fell within the responsibility of the parent company and CAV Cambridge’s on-site management could not make operational decisions.

Essentially this case established that a parent company will not automatically be held liable for health and safety breaches by its subsidiaries. But likewise, as this case demonstrated, neither will the liability automatically lie with the subsidiary.

Instead each case will depend on its facts, and the courtwill carry out a “piercing the corporate veil” exercise to establish which corporate entity the duty of care lies with. In determining this, the independence of the subsidiary in terms of management and operational and financial decision making will be taken into account as will the parent company’s awareness of and involvement in the subsidiary’s health and safety practices.