Legal Watch:Health & SafetyDecember 2014Issue: 004

In This Issue:

• Introduction

• The perils of prohibition notices

• Tactics and expert evidence – neither the jury nor the judge will be fooled

• The Sentencing Council’s consultation on the guidelines for health and safety offences, corporate manslaughter and food and hygiene offences

• Forthcoming legislation

• Review of significant fines

IntroductionIn this edition of Legal Watch: Health and Safety we look at a rare case challenging prohibition notices, the use and effectiveness of accident reconstruction evidence in prosecutions and comment on the Sentencing Council’s recent consultation on guidelines for health and safety offences, corporate manslaughter and food safety and hygiene. As usual we also have a roundup of significant fines over the last three months.

03

The perils of prohibition noticesKinsley Eze and Another v The Health and Safety Executive (2014)

It is worth remembering that the powers of the health and safety inspector are wide and potentially catastrophic for any business. Not only is the inspector able to investigate and regulate health and safety but if he considers that an activity poses a serious risk of personal injury he can issue a prohibition notice preventing those activities from being carried on (S22 Health and Safety at Work Act). Such notices can have devastating consequences for any business and in certain circumstances can mean the business is no longer able to trade.

A failure to comply with a prohibition notice is an offence, the penalty for which can be a prison sentence. As with many of the health and safety inspector’s powers, there is little case law on challenging prohibition notices. However, you ignore them at your peril.

So found Mr Kinsley Eze in the above case. Mr Kinsley’s wife was the registered owner of a property in Harwich. He and his wife applied for planning permission to redevelop the property into flats. The work commenced in 2013 but following complaints from local residents, the HSE investigated. The inspectors formed a view that the work was being carried out in a dangerous fashion and therefore served a number of prohibition notices on both Mr Kinsley and his wife. Sadly Mr Kinsley ignored them and criminal proceedings were taken against him (but not his wife). He was convicted of five offences under the 1974 Act (three for failing to observe prohibition notices) and he was sentenced to a total of 30 months imprisonment. He is seeking to appeal this sentence.

In the meantime he had also challenged the prohibition notices by lodging an appeal in the employment tribunal. There the notices were upheld both against him and his wife. The notices alleged that there had been a breach of S2 and 3 of the Healthy and Safety at Work Act but made

no mention of S4. Mr Kinsley appealed to the High Court essentially on the basis that the notices asserted that he and his wife had unified control of the work being carried out but that the tribunal had applied a test of divided control which would apply if the notices referred to S4 of the Healthy and Safety at Work Act. Mr Kinsley was allowed out of prison to represent himself in the High Court appeal. He was in fact successful in establishing that the tribunal had applied the wrong test. However, the court then had to consider whether the matter should be referred back to the employment tribunal or whether the High Court was in a position to make its own finding. The judge decided the latter. Having considered the evidence which was before the employment tribunal, the judge found that there was ample and sufficient evidence for the tribunal to find that Mr Kinsley was in sole control of the works and therefore his appeal was dismissed.

However, in his wife’s case the appeal was successful. The judge found that there was no evidence that she had any control of the work and the notices against her were dismissed and her appeal allowed.

ConclusionThere was a great deal of focus during the course of the case, as would be expected, on the precise wording of the notices and whether they had been properly framed in the first place. A prohibition notice is often issued very quickly during the course of an inspector’s investigation, possibly on the same day that he first arrived. This is often before the full facts are established. Therefore, it is important to scrutinize the wording of the notices carefully and, if necessary, to take action to protect the position by lodging an appeal in the employment tribunal within 21 days. What is abundantly clear is that a party should not ignore a notice or sadly could find himself spending some time at Her Majesty’s pleasure.

04

Tactics and expert evidence – neither the jury nor the judge will be fooledR v Greenhalgh Court of Appeal (2014)

In this case the Court of Appeal was asked to consider an appeal against conviction and sentence. It is not strictly a health and safety case: it arises out of a conviction of causing death by careless driving whilst driving in the course of employment. Nevertheless it involves many of the issues we often have to consider when defending health and safety prosecutions namely:

• What response should be given to a request and interview under caution?

• Should the defendant give evidence?

• The use and benefit of accident reconstruction evidence?

Mr Greenhalgh, the defendant, was convicted of causing the death of Mr Ford by careless driving. He was sentenced to a community order of 300 hours to be completed within 12 months (with a curfew requirement for three months). He was disqualified from driving for 18 months.

He appealed his conviction on the grounds that the judge should have acceded to a submission of no case to answer and secondly that the judge had misdirected the jury regarding his interview with the police.

The factsThe accident occurred when the defendant was returning his 17 tonne lorry to his employer’s depot in Corsham. The deceased was an 89 year-old man, described as somewhat deaf and using hearing aids but otherwise in good health. The deceased was attempting to cross the road when he was struck by the defendant. The defendant did not give evidence at the trial but he had given a full interview to the police. There were inconsistencies in his interview. The evidence was that he had been travelling at 38 mph about

100-120 metres out from the accident location, slowed to 27 mph and when the collision occurred his speed was likely to have been 14 mph. This evidence was available from a tachograph.

There was a report from the police vehicle examiner and the defendant relied upon a report from a Mr Hawthorn. The experts produced a joint report in which they agreed the following:

• Most drivers are able to react in a time of less than two seconds

• From a speed of 27mph the reaction and braking time together could be as high as 3.7 seconds

• There was no evidence of the speed at which Mr Ford was walking

• Some research suggest that the average walking speed for a person over 60 might be 1.2 metres per second (2.8 mph) (the evidence in the case from witnesses was that Mr Ford might have been almost jogging)

• If Mr Ford was at the kerb when seen by the defendant, he would have been able to stop the lorry before impact provided that Mr Ford was walking at a speed of 1.92 meters per second or less

• If, on the other hand, he was walking faster than this, a similar reaction time of 2 seconds, the defendant could not have stopped before the point of impact

The defendant made a submission of no case to answer at the close of the prosecution’s case, on the basis that even if the appellant had seen the deceased before he set off across the road, he would have not being able to avoid the collision.

The main issue was when did the defendant see the deceased? Was it when he was at the kerb or halfway across the offside carriageway? In any event, the prosecution

05

contended that if it was the former, the defendant had time to sound his horn or take other action; if it was the latter he was not paying attention. The prosecution contended that these were matters properly left to the jury.

The Court of Appeal agreed. It clearly regarded the decision of the defendant not to give evidence and then seek to interpret the joint report in a way that was favourable to the defendant’s case (which was hardly surprising) as a tactic. The Court of Appeal was not fooled by the joint report which it pointed out contained weaknesses and assumptions. Equally, the Court of Appeal was of the view that the jury would not have been fooled by it either. It said:

“In our judgment it was well open to the jury to reach one of two conclusions to which the [prosecution] had invited them: either the appellant saw Mr Ford when it was too late; or he had seen him with ample time within which to sound a warning and he failed to do so. On either basis a conviction for this offence was justified.”

There was a second issue as to whether the judge properly directed the jury as to the use that might be made of his police interview. In an interview the defendant had made admissions and assertions in what is known as “a mixed statement”. The judge directed that the interview is not capable of being evidence in the case and the jury should attach what weight they think is appropriate to it but bear in mind that it was not subjected to cross examination or scrutiny before the court.

The prosecution accepted that the direction was not accurate. Assertions made in a mixed statement are admissible in evidence but juries are regularly directed that while admissible they might not have the same effect as the evidence given under oath in court.

Nevertheless the interview contained inconsistencies about when the defendant first saw the deceased and the defendant chose not to give evidence. The Court of Appeal rejected the suggestion of the judge’s inaccurate statement of the law as to the effect of the interview would have made any material effect upon the jury’s assessment. The conviction was upheld. The Court of Appeal did, however, reduce the disqualification from 18 months to 12 months.

ConclusionThis case is a useful reminder of some of the difficulties encountered and tactical decisions required when defending a prosecution.

First, great care should be given to the decision to attend any interview under caution. It is usually better to prepare a full account and submit that in response to such a request.

Secondly, reconstruction evidence is often of limited assistance and should be treated with caution. In the writer’s experience, the reconstruction evidence is often based on assumptions and educated guess work and most judges and juries are not deceived by it.

06

The Sentencing Council’s consultation on the guidelines for health and safety offences, corporate manslaughter and food and hygiene offences The Sentencing Council is an independent body responsible for developing sentencing guidelines for courts to use when passing sentence. It is the successor to the Sentencing Guidelines Council. It has now published a consultation in respect of guidelines for health and safety offences, corporate manslaughter, food safety and hygiene offences.

Although definitive guidelines for corporate manslaughter and health and safety offences causing death committed by organisations were published in February 2010, the council considered that there is only a piecemeal guidance for sentencing in health and safety offences generally which were excluded by the previous guidelines, i.e. those not resulting in death and offences committed by individuals.

The consultation was published on 13 November 2014 and will end on 18 February 2015.

Those committing health and safety, food safety and hygiene offences can expect greater financial penalties following the publication of proposed sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Council last month if the guidelines are accepted.

The council has raised a series of questions aimed at gauging public opinion on the factors that should be taken into account when courts impose sentences for these offences. It proposes that courts take into account the seriousness of the offence as well as the financial circumstances of the organisation or individual. Importantly, the means of a corporate offender will be based upon turnover, which will form the basis of the calculation of the penalty. The council believes that turnover represents a more accurate measure of financial means and is less prone to accounting manipulation. This is not a new approach and

was the preferred (and later abandoned) route adopted by the sentencing guidelines council during the early stages of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill. The new guidelines, if adopted, will assist courts in dealing with difficult issues such as risk and degree of harm involved in each offence and will also identify appropriate levels of fine for organisations including charities and public bodies. The council considered that some sentences imposed were too low, particularly those relating to large organisations convicted of the most serious offences and it is clear that it would expect large organisations with a turnover exceeding £50m will face financial penalties going into the millions. On closer examination of the proposals, smaller and medium-sized organisations are also likely to face a hike in penalties although it is not the expressed intention of the council to increase penalties for SMEs.

The guidelines, if accepted, could result in more contested trials and a greater examination, on conviction, of an organisation’s financial status. More time and expense is likely to be incurred by prosecutors and defenders arguing over the health or otherwise of a company’s balance sheet. We are likely to see a greater use of forensic accountants supporting either side.

In principle, sentencing guidelines will assist courts in returning more consistent sentences. The council may have had one eye on the removal of the financial limit of penalties available to Magistrates Courts once S85 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Prosecution of Offenders Act comes into force (see below). One wonders, however, whether there needs to be any further increase in the level of fines for health and safety offences. The impact on SMEs is already very significant and can be the difference between a business surviving or going under.

07

Whilst a more consistent approach to sentencing must be welcomed this should be at the expense of sentencing flexibility. The simple reality of these types of offence is that there can be myriad of factors to be considered when dealing with an appropriate and fair sentence.

For those wishing to respond to the consultation details can be found at:

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/sentencing-council/health-and-safety-offences-guidelines

08

Forthcoming legislationLASPO strikes againThe Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) received royal assent on 1 May 2012. The act brought in widespread changes to civil and criminal procedures. However, a number of reforms within the act have not yet come into force including S85 which gives the Secretary of State powers to remove or amend the caps on fines that Magistrates’ Courts can impose for criminal offences. The section, when implemented, will affect primary and secondary legislation in England and Wales that gives Magistrates’ Courts the power to impose fines for a criminal offence in the following circumstances:

• A fine payable on summary conviction that is currently capped at the statutory maximum (£5,000) or capped at a higher amount (for example £20,000 or £50,000), could be become a fine of unlimited amount in England and Wales. This change will apply to summary and either way offences including those contained in the Health and Safety at Work Act and its associated regulations. However, LASPO gives the Secretary of State for Justice the power to dis-apply these changes and set new caps by way of secondary legislation

• Fines below £5,000 (whether expressed by reference to the standard scale or a fixed fine) will continue to be capped but the amounts may be increased

S85 will not come into force until at least February 2015. It will apply across all business sectors and will affect a wide range of legislation, including health and safety and environmental, food safety, financial services, competition and property.

If caps on financial penalties imposed by magistrates are removed or increased, careful consideration will have to be given to the appropriate venue for trial and sentencing. It may be in a company’s interest to elect for Crown Court trial or sentence if magistrates are given unlimited powers

to impose fines. New sentencing guidelines for health and safety and food safety offences are currently undergoing public consultation and will also have a significant bearing on decisions on plea and venue.

This is likely to mean that the cost of defending prosecutions will increase with the potential to appeal the level of fine also increasing. This undoubtedly will impact upon insurers.

A number a changes can therefore be anticipated next year. Watch this space.

09

November 2014

Lois Gastoneaux Ltd, from Harrow, MiddlesexMichael Brett, of Lodge Lane, Little Chalfont, BuckinghamshireBreach/Circumstances: A Middlesex property development firm and a Buckinghamshire contractor have been ordered to pay a total of over £180,000 for safety failings after a worker was killed whilst driving a dumper truck during construction works at a former military base in Buckinghamshire.

Lois Gastoneaux Ltd, from Harrow, Middlesex pleaded guilty to/found guilty of breaching S3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and Regulations 37(6) and 31(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.

Michael Brett pleaded guilty to/found guilty of breaching Regulation 37(6) and Regulation 31(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.

Plea: Pleaded guilty in part.

Sentence: Lois Gastoneaux Ltd was fined £150,000 and ordered to pay £28,033.

Michael Brett, was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £1,500 in costs.

Hafod Care Association LtdBreach/Circumstances: A care home company failed to ensure an elderly resident’s safety when she managed to overcome a restrictor device to open a window and fall from her first floor room.

Hafod Care Association Ltd, pleaded guilty to one charge under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Fined £96,000 and ordered to pay £100,000 in costs.

Review of significant fines October 2014

Vector Aerospace International Limited

Breach/Circumstances: An international aerospace company based in Hampshire has been prosecuted after 13 employees were found to be suffering varying degrees of a debilitating nerve condition.

In total, 13 cases emerged of employees who had worked at the same site for between 5 and 45 years. Two of them were diagnosed at Stage 3 – showing the most severe and painful symptoms.

Vector Aerospace International Ltd admitted three charges under the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Fined a total of £50,000 and ordered to pay £2,514 in costs.

Cantelo Nurseries Ltd

Breach/Circumstances: A horticultural company has been fined after a worker died and three others were seriously injured in an explosion while emptying a pressurised tank used to heat greenhouses.

Cantelo Nurseries Ltd, pleaded guilty to two breaches of health and safety legislation.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Fined a total of £80,000 and ordered to pay £59,812 in costs.

010

Refinery Supplies LtdBreach/Circumstances: An Oldham manufacturer has been ordered to pay £125,000 in fines and costs after an employee was killed when he was struck by a three-tonne piece of steel being lifted by an overhead crane.

Refinery Supplies Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Fined £90,000 and ordered to pay £35,000 in costs.

Davies Veterinary Specialists LimitedBreach/Circumstances: A Bedfordshire veterinary firm has been fined after workers were potentially exposed to harmful substances found in animal chemotherapy drugs prepared at the veterinary practice over a four-year period.

Davies Veterinary Specialists Limited pleaded guilty to breaching S2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Fined £35,000 and ordered to pay £50,378 in costs.

Frank Barnes (Darwen) LtdBreach/Circumstances: A Darwen-based scrap metal firm has been fined for health and safety failings after workers suffered from lead poisoning.

One 48-year-old man from Darwen was admitted to hospital after blood tests revealed he had seven times the normal amount of lead in his body, putting him at risk of nerve, brain and kidney damage, and infertility.

Frank Barnes (Darwen) Ltd was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an investigation found employees had been regularly exposed to lead fumes and dust for a number of months. Frank Barnes (Darwen) Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £29,639.65.

September 2014

Rolls Royce Marine Power Operations LtdBreach/Circumstances: Significant failings at Rolls Royce Marine Power Operations Ltd led to a radioactive source (a capsule which was the size of a small screw) being lost for approximately five hours at the Sinfin Lane site on 3 March 2011.

This resulted in a number of workers at the site being exposed to high levels of gamma radiation, in some cases many times in excess of relevant legal dose limits.

Rolls Royce Marine Power Operations Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching S2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, Regulation 11 of the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999 and three counts of breaching Regulation 38(2) of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Fined £200,000 and ordered to pay costs of £176,500.

British Pipeline Agency LtdBreach/Circumstances: A company which distributes fuel across a national network of pipelines has been fined after 35,000 litres of unleaded petrol erupted from pipework due to a joint failure.

The fuel, which escaped under high pressure and rained down on the site, owned by British Pipeline Agency Ltd, could have resulted in a major fire and possible explosion.

British Pipeline Agency Ltd, pleaded guilty to breaching S2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Fined £30,000 with costs of £5,860.

011

Greencroft Care LtdBreach/Circumstances: A nursing home in Deeside has been fined for breaching safety laws after an 88-year-old resident suffered 9% burns to her body when she was lowered into a bath of scalding hot water.

The resident at Greencroft Nursing Home in Aston, Queensferry, died of complications caused by her injuries a month after the incident.

Greencroft Care Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and was fined £5,000. The judge at the hearing said if the firm had not been in liquidation, he would have sent the case to crown court, where the fine would have been at least £100,000.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Fined £5,000. The judge at the hearing said if the firm had not been in liquidation, he would have sent the case to crown court, where the fine would have been at least £100,000.

BAE Systems Global Combat Systems Munitions LimitedBreach/Circumstances: BAE Systems Global Combat Systems Munitions Limited has been fined £80,000 for a serious safety breach after a worker’s leg bone was shattered while test firing a gun on a range in Northumberland.

BAE Systems Global Combat Systems Munitions Limited pleaded guilty to breaching S2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Fined £80,000 and ordered to pay £100,000 costs.

SW Global Resourcing LimitedBreach/Circumstances: A Glasgow-based company has pled guilty at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 which resulted in the death of an employee at the Annick Water Viaduct, Stewarton, Ayrshire, in 2010.

An employee of SW Global Resourcing was working from the basket of a MEWP positioned at a height of approximately 13 metres (42 feet). The plinth that the MEWP was positioned on had been built with no end stop or edge protection to remove the risk of the MEWP falling from it. The MEWP drove off the edge of the concrete plinth and overturned, throwing Mr Watson from its basket against a column of the Viaduct and from there to the shallow river bed. He died at the scene as a result of his injuries.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Fined £200,000.

Tariq AliBreach/Circumstances: An Accrington landlord has been ordered to pay nearly £60,000 in fines and costs after he ignored repeated warnings about arranging an annual gas safety check at a house in the town.

Tariq Ali pleaded guilty to single breaches of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 on 4 September 2014. The charges relate to failing to have the gas appliances checked annually, and failing to comply with an improvement notice.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Fined £40,000 and ordered to pay £18,054 in prosecution costs.

August 2014

Regent HouseBreach/Circumstances: A Hertfordshire care home operator has been fined after a resident with clinical dementia was suffocated by an unsecure wardrobe.

The company pleading guilty to a single breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Fined a total of £85,000 and ordered to pay a further £48,000 in costs.

012

Akram Hussain and Inam HussainBreach/Circumstances: Two Stoke-on-Trent brothers with little or no experience of building and construction work have been given prison sentences after they exposed workers to asbestos.

Akram Hussain and Inam Hussain both pleaded guilty to breaching S3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Akram Hussain was given a custodial sentence of 22 weeks and ordered to pay costs of £43,000. Inam Hussain was given a custodial sentence of 14 weeks.

West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS TrustBreach/Circumstances: An NHS trust has been fined after it was found likely to have exposed workers to potentially fatal asbestos material for more than a decade at its three hospitals in Hertfordshire.

Between April 2000 and December 2011, the estates team at West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust was maintaining buildings at Watford General Hospital, Hemel Hempstead Hospital and St Albans Hospital without knowing that asbestos was present or being trained to identify and control exposure.

West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust, pleaded guilty to four breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and a single breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Fined £55,000 and ordered to pay £34,078 in costs.

NHS Ayrshire and Arran Health BoardBreach/Circumstances: NHS Ayrshire and Arran Health Board has been fined for serious safety breaches after a mental health patient was able to hang herself.

NHS Ayrshire and Arran Health Board pleaded guilty to breaching S3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Fined £50,000.

East Coast Viners Grain LLPBreach/Circumstances: A Stonehaven animal feed company has been fined £240,000 after a lorry driver was crushed to death when a two-tonne, fully-loaded grain bin fell onto him from a forklift truck.

East Coast Viners Grain LLP pleaded guilty to breaching S3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Fined £240,000.

BOC Ltd, of Priestley RoadBreach/Circumstances: A multinational industrial gas supplier based in Surrey has been fined after an explosion at one of its manufacturing plants in Bristol left a worker with life changing injuries. The employee was filling an acetylene cylinder as part of a routine operation when the incident happened. The acetylene solution within the cylinder became unstable and the cylinder exploded, starting a fire which was allowed to burn for eight days, until, after careful consideration, it was extinguished by Avon Fire & Rescue Service.

BOC Ltd, of Priestley Road admitted breaching S2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Fined £175,000 with costs of £85,000.

013

Blackpool Coastal Housing LtdBreach/Circumstances: A resident at a block of flats in Blackpool narrowly avoided being seriously injured or killed when the second floor walkway he was standing on collapsed, a court has heard.

The resident had returned from the shops to his home when he felt the balcony move beneath his feet as he turned the key in his front door. He dived into his flat and looked back to see that the walkway had gone

Blackpool Coastal Housing Ltd was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an investigation found that the company had known the walkways were dangerous for several years, but had failed to act to make them safe

Blackpool Coastal Housing Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Fined £50,000 and ordered to pay £27,821.25 in prosecution costs.

Industrial Chemicals LimitedBreach/Circumstances: An Essex company has been fined after four of its chemical storage tanks failed and spilled 150 tonnes of hazardous material. An industrial estate was evacuated and access roads closed as a result of the incident.

Industrial Chemicals Limited pleaded guilty to a single breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Plea: Guilty.

Sentence: Fined £50,000 and ordered to pay £14,231 in costs.

The information and opinions contained in this document are not intended to be a comprehensive study, nor to provide legal advice, and should not be relied on or treated as a substitute for specific advice concerning individual situations. This document speaks as of its date and does not reflect any changes in law or practice after that date. Plexus Law and Greenwoods Solicitors are trading names of Parabis Law LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership incorporated in England & Wales. Reg No: OC315763. Registered office: 8 Bedford Park, Croydon, Surrey CR0 2AP. Parabis Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the SRA.

www.plexuslaw.co.ukwww.greenwoods-solicitors.co.uk

To unsubscribe from this newsletter please email:

crm@greenwoods-solicitors.com

Contact UsFor more information please contact:

Peter James, Partner

T: 0844 245 5319E: peter.james@plexuslaw.co.uk

Philip Tracey, Partner

T: 0207 079 4658E: pbt@greenwoods-solicitors.com

Anthony Bushell, Partner

T: 0844 693 5648E: anthony.bushell@plexus-law.co.uk

Geoff Owen, Learning & Development Consultant

T: 01908 298216E: gro@greenwoods-solicitors.com

PublicationsIf you would like to receive any of the below, please email indicating which you would like to receive.

Weekly:

• Legal Watch: Personal InjuryMonthly:

• Legal Watch: Property Risks & CoverageQuarterly:

• Legal Watch: Counter Fraud • Legal Watch: Health & Safety• Legal Watch: Professional Indemnity • Legal Watch: Disease