黑洞社区

Laing O鈥橰ourke Infrastructure Ltd has been fined following the death of a worker at Heathrow Airport in 2005.

The firm was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive along with SGB Services Ltd, a supplier of construction equipment.

Both pleaded guilty to breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act. Laing O鈥橰ourke Infrastructure Ltd was fined 拢75,000 and ordered to pay 拢75,000 costs. SGB Services Ltd was fined 拢30,000 and ordered to pay 拢30,000 in costs.

The fines were issued following an incident in August 2005, involving workers building a multi-storey car park at Heathrow Airport鈥檚 Terminal 5 construction site.

Matthew Gilbert, a 27-year-old carpenter from Plymouth and a 21-year-old engineer鈥檚 assistant, Parminder Singh, from Slough, were standing on a concrete slab when it collapsed and fell 17 metres to the level below.

Gilbert was killed in the collapse, while Singh suffered extensive scarring, along with a broken back, broken leg and a broken jaw.

The construction of the car park required the use of Threaded Shoring Adaptors, also known as TSAs which were used to secure parts of the temporary works structure. The HSE investigation revealed that the collapse of the concrete slab was due to the catastrophic failure of two TSAs, which were found to be part of a sub-standard batch manufactured for SGB Services Ltd two years previously.

SGB Services Ltd failed to ensure that the TSAs they supplied were able to carry maximum loads. Furthermore, the HSE said the company resupplied the same sub-standard TSAs to construction sites in 2005, despite having implemented a recall programme, which was intended to remove all defective TSAs from circulation.

The HSE investigation also found that Laing O鈥橰ourke Infrastructure Ltd failed to have adequate systems in place to inspect the quality and condition of the TSAs before they were used in safety-critical applications, and had failed to remove sub-standard TSAs from use when warned.

HSE Inspector Karen Morris said: 鈥淭he tragic death of one man and the serious injuries suffered by his colleague could have been prevented if both companies had had more robust systems in place.

鈥淭his case demonstrates an extremely serious failure of both the principal contractor and the supplier to ensure the materials they supplied for the work were fit for purpose.鈥�

Ends