Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Exolum Pipeline System LTD v Health And Safety Executive

[2024] EWCA Crim 947
A company was found guilty of not being careful enough when digging near a fuel pipeline. Although no one was hurt, there was a serious risk of fire or explosion. The court reduced the fine because the company didn't mean to be careless and the risk, while present, wasn't realised.

Key Facts

  • Exolum Pipeline Systems Ltd. convicted of two offences under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for failing to ensure the safety of employees and non-employees during pipeline excavation.
  • The incident involved excavating a potentially leaking pipeline clamp carrying petroleum under high pressure.
  • A conscious decision was made not to depressurize the pipeline or change the product before excavation.
  • Excavation proceeded despite concerns about a leak, ultimately revealing a leaking clamp.
  • No one was injured, but the potential for a serious incident existed.
  • Original sentence: £2,300,000 fine (£1,000,000 and £1,300,000 consecutively), plus victim surcharge and prosecution costs.

Legal Principles

The term 'risk' in the 1974 Act has its ordinary meaning – the possibility of danger, not actual danger.

R v Board of Trustees of the Science Museum [1993] 3 All ER 853

The prosecution doesn't need to prove a particular leak mechanism would have caused injury.

R v Chargot Ltd [2009] 1 WLR 1 at [22] to [26]

Legislation concerns situations with a material risk to health and safety that any reasonable person would appreciate and guard against.

R v Chargot Ltd (per Lord Hope)

The Galbraith test (1981) was applied to determine if there was sufficient evidence for a conviction.

R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039

Outcomes

Appeal against conviction refused.

Sufficient evidence existed to show a material risk to health and safety, despite the eventual leak being small. The possibility of a larger, more dangerous leak was present.

Appeal against sentence allowed; fine reduced.

The original fine of £2,300,000 was considered manifestly excessive. The court adjusted the fine upwards for multiple workers at risk, and then downwards to reflect mitigating factors. The reduced total fine is £1,500,000 (£600,000 and £900,000 consecutively).

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.