Sentencing Updates for May 2026
-
1 juillet 2026 1 juillet 2026
-
Royaume-Uni et Europe
-
Réformes réglementaires
-
Assurance et réassurance
We have compiled the latest updates relating to sentencing for a range of regulatory areas, as of May 2026.
Environmental Sentencing
| Date | Turnover/size of company (N.B approx only) | Court | Fine | Sector | Incident type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13th April | £2,145.2 million | UK | £60,000 Voluntary donation of £500,000 given to a groundwork | Utilities | The defendant water company pleaded guilty to the offence of failing to obtain a permit to release fish into inland waters. The sentence marks a regulatory milestone as the first time a water company has been sentenced under The Keeping and Introduction of Fish (England and River Esk Catchment Area) Regulations 2015. While conducting a scour valve test on a reservoir, the defendant released over 30,000 fish. This stranded them in the too small and unsuitable environment of a brook, with fatal consequences for over 16,000 fish. The defendant quickly brought in a contractor to rescue the fish and about 18,000 fish were returned to the reservoir. Scour valves are essential components in pressurised water systems like reservoirs, and it is important they are maintained and tested regularly. However, the high-speed discharge killed or injured many of the fish, with some bodies found embedded in bridge walls approximately two feet above the water’s surface. Others had missing scales and protruding organs. The defendant did not have a permit to introduce fish in such numbers to the downstream watercourse. The introduction of 34,000 fish met the criteria for ‘Category 2’ harm, meaning there was a ‘significant adverse impact on animal health’. Charge The defendant introduced fish, namely roach, into inland waters, otherwise than under and in accordance with the terms of a permit this being an offence pursuant to Regulation 4(a) of the Keeping and Introduction of Fish (England and River Esk Catchment Area) Regulations 2015. |
| 2nd April | Small company | Preston Magistrates' Court | £80,000 | Waste | The defendant technology company exported waste falsely described as clean plastic, when it was actually contaminated with electrical waste, including wiring and circuit boards and other mixed waste. This meant the waste could not lawfully be exported without prior notification and consent. Two prohibition notices were issued, requiring the defendant to stop shipping contaminated plastic without compliance with the regulations. Despite this, two further containers were exported and were found to contain heavily contaminated plastic waste. The defendant and its director pleaded guilty to 16 charges. |
| 27th May | Small company | Preston Magistrates' Court | £30,400 in fines and prosecution costs | Waste | The defendant waste management company attempted to illegally export plastics contaminated with household waste – including sanitary products and nappies – three times in one year. It entered into a business agreement with companies in Turkey to carry out the scheme. After obtaining waste from other businesses in the UK, the defendant was caught attempting to transport containers contaminated with electricals, including wiring and circuit boards and other mixed household waste. The defendant failed to respond to a warning and clear guidance from the EA after the first offence, committed in 2019. Eleven shipping containers were loaded with waste at a recycling facility and transported where inspections found the waste was not as described and it was denied export. The third offence was the worst of all, involving shipments loaded, totalling nine shipping containers, bound for Turkey. During the search of selected waste bales more contaminants were removed from within them including tin, paper, card, textiles, plastic and wood, and again, household waste. The final illegal export of waste took place despite an earlier warning from the EA. The defendant did not disclose the source of the waste, with some seeming to originate from France. A third party was used to source plastic waste from the same company involved in the first offence, but the waste was then taken to another company to load it into shipping containers. |
| 11th May | Small company | Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court | £9,000 10-year restoration order was imposed | Agriculture | The defendant farm damaged a protected wildlife site. The Site of Special Scientific Interest was protected in 2004 in recognition of its importance for rare plant species. The site supports more than 60 types of arable flowers, including several known as archaeophytes, which are plants introduced by humans from mainland Europe that have since become naturalised in Britain and Ireland. Most were brought over by early farmers during the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman or Medieval periods, often as contaminants of crop seeds. Many of these species are now rare in Wales and across the UK. This SSSI is the only one in Wales specifically designated for the protection of arable plants and is considered to be of significant cultural as well as ecological importance. Legal action was taken against the defendant in response to continued damage and the serious risk of rare plants being lost altogether. The rules protecting SSSIs had been broken several times between 2017 and 2025. There were repeated cases where fertiliser, slurry and herbicides were used without permission from NRW, damaging the rare plant life. Despite advice, warnings and meetings, the activity continued. Experts say this has caused a serious decline in the number and variety of rare plants on the site. However, some still remain, and a court restoration order means recovery may still be possible if the land is managed correctly. |
| 22nd April | Micro company | South Yorkshire Magistrates’ Court | £8,000 | Waste | The defendant waste company has been given a month to clear an illegal waste site or risk further court action. It had previously pleaded guilty to allowing an illegal waste site to operate on land it owns. The EA found a large amount of mixed waste, including fridges and other electrical items and inert waste such as soil and stones. In a follow up visit later in the year, the EA told the occupier he could not store waste without a permit, and gave him six weeks to clear it. A later inspection showed none of the waste had been cleared, and in fact new waste had accumulated. The Agency subsequently served a formal notice requiring the site to be cleared. The notice was not complied with. Complaints were also received about the burning of waste, and the operator was advised by the council to cease burning, which was impacting on local residents. Full charges: The defendant did knowingly cause or knowingly permit the operation of a regulated facility, namely a waste operation, except under and to the extent authorised by an environmental permit. Contrary to regulation 12(1) and regulation 38(1)(b) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. |
| 3rd June | UK | Exeter Magistrates' Court | £1.853m fine reduced by a third as the def entered an early guilty plea | Utilities | The defendant water company has been fined after its water supply was contaminated with the parasite cryptosporidium. It pleaded guilty to supplying water unfit for human consumption. Four people were hospitalised and there were more than 140 confirmed cases of sickness and diarrhoea during the 54-day incident in May 2024. Households and businesses were advised not to use their tap water without boiling it first or to use bottled water instead after traces of cryptosporidium were found in the water supply network. The DWI's investigation found cryptosporidium from animal faeces had entered the drinking water supply network on agricultural land, likely via an exposed and faulty air valve covered in mud. |
Health and safety sentencing
| Date | Turnover/size of company (N.B approx only) | Court | Type of case | Fine | Sector | Incident type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18th June | £10,594 million | Southampton Magistrates’ Court | Non-fatal | £1 million | Gas | There was a partial collapse of a large steel tower at the defendant petroleum company’s refinery, causing the structure to slew and rupture pipework, resulting in the uncontrolled release of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). The incident led to a loss of containment of approximately 2,400kg of LPG over a 33-hour period. It took just over 30 minutes for around 400kg of the gas to be released following the collapse. Workers were in the vicinity at the time of the collapse and were exposed to the risk of serious injury from falling debris, as well as the potential for burns had the gas ignited. Fortunately, no injuries were reported. Emergency measures, including the use of water curtains, were implemented to reduce the spread of the extremely flammable vapour. It took approximately 33 hours to isolate the affected process and safely vent the remaining substances to the flare system. The structural collapse was caused by corrosion of the steel tower that had developed over many years. This corrosion had been identified as early as 2010, but the defendant failed to take appropriate action to control the risk. It pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. |
| 13th April | £2,932.0 million | Peterborough Magistrates’ Court | Non-fatal | £134,000 | Retail | The defendant flower supplier has been fined after an employee’s leg was amputated following a serious incident at its processing facility. The man was injured while helping to manually unload cargo from a delivery trailer ahead of Valentine’s Day. Cargo had become stuck on the trailer, and the man, along with two colleagues, attempted to free it. As part of this process, he stepped onto a roller deck where there was a gap. Once the cargo was freed, a skid slid from the trailer onto the roller deck and struck his left leg, which had become trapped in the gap. The man sustained devastating injuries and later underwent a series of medical procedures, ultimately resulting in a through-knee amputation. The defendant failed to ensure employees were safe when unloading aircraft skids from delivery vehicles in the intake area. Workers were required to physically intervene when skids became stuck, exposing them to risk from moving loads. The investigation also identified a 10cm gap in the roller deck that had not been recognised or addressed, creating a risk of employees stepping into it. The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. |
| 13th April | £482.7 million | UK | Non-fatal | £2.25 million | Transport | An engineering surveyor stood underneath a heavy lighting carriage hoisted onto a mast that fell to the ground as the wires holding it failed. The defendant rail company pleaded guilty to breaching its duty under section 4 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. The lighting carriage, used to light up the area to carry out inspections and repairs, weighed 115kg and fell 18m at the defendant’s terminal. The injured man was employed by a third-party contractor and was carrying out a thorough examination of lighting equipment when the incident happened. |
| 28th May | £41.2 million | Aberdeen Sheriff Court | Non-fatal | £146,700 | Shipping | The defendant shipping company has been fined after an employee suffered serious and life-changing injuries when he was struck by a reversing forklift truck at the defendant’s yard. The worker was on foot, unclipping the curtain side of an articulated trailer, when the rear nearside wheel of the forklift made contact with his right leg, pulling him to the ground. He suffered multiple fractures to his right foot and lower leg, as well as a de-gloving injury, undergoing two surgical procedures and skin grafts. He has also required counselling because of the incident and has yet to return to work. The defendant failed to ensure its workplace was organised in such a way that pedestrians and vehicles could circulate safely. While it had a traffic management plan in place, it lacked the necessary detail to ensure that loading and unloading – which routinely took place concurrently in the same area – could be carried out safely without putting employees on foot at risk from moving vehicles. The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 17(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and section 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. |
| 26th May | £29.2 million | Leicester Magistrates’ Court | Non-fatal | £170,000 | Manufacturing | An employee’s fingers were crushed when his hand became trapped beneath the foot of a three-tonne machine during a lifting operation involving a forklift truck. He was working for the defendant machine manufacturing company at the time. The worker’s hand was underneath the machine when an unintended action caused the forklift truck’s forks to drop to the floor. The machine was lifted to release his hand and, following medical treatment, two of the worker’s damaged fingers were amputated in hospital. The defendant had failed to ensure the lifting operation involving the forklift truck was properly planned and carried out in a safe manner. It pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 8(1) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998. |
| 18th June | £5.8 million | Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court | Fatal | £60,000 | Leisure / recreation | A man died after being electrocuted at the defendant’s leisure facility. He had been playing 5 aside football with friends on the all weather pitch. The ball went out of play and the man went to collect it. As he did so, he came into contact with a floodlight which delivered the fatal shock. Despite efforts by his friends to resuscitate him, later that day he was pronounced dead at hospital. It was found the incident arose from worn and faulty wiring on the floodlight which the defendant had failed to properly inspect and maintain. It was also found that this failing had been present for several years and no action had been taken to repair the equipment. This was despite a previous incident being reported to the leisure centre a month before the man’s death when an off-duty police officer suffered an electric shock from the same equipment. The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. |
| 27th May | Small company | Warrington Magistrates’ Court | Non-fatal | £10,000 | Construction | An employee suffered an electric shock and burns as a result of striking a live underground cable whilst working for the defendant fence contractor. He had been part of a team installing security fencing to a synagogue. He was using a breaker to dig into the ground in preparation to install the metal fencing. However, the man struck a live underground cable causing electric shock, which resulted in him sustaining multiple burn injuries to his stomach, chest and arms. The defendant had failed to implement suitable and sufficient controls to prevent risk from underground services. It pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 25(4) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. |
| 28th May | Small company | Warrington Magistrates’ Court | Fatal | £60,000 | Waste | An employee was hit and killed by a reversing telehandler at the defendant’s waste and recycling facility. The defendant failed to ensure the site was organised in such a way that pedestrians and vehicles could circulate in a safe manner. It pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. |
| 6th May | Small company | Bristol Magistrates’ Court | Non-fatal | £60,000 | Forestry | A tree surgeon suffered a powerful electric shock from an overhead powerline while carrying out maintenance to hedges. He was working as part of a team of three on the side of a road when the mobile lighting tower he was pushing made contact with an overhead powerline. When the tower hit the powerlines he ‘couldn’t let go of it’. He sustained life-threatening injuries and was rushed to hospital, where he spent the next five weeks. The defendant had decided to do the work after dark due to the needs of traffic flow. However, it had failed to adequately plan for, or risk assess the dangers posed by overhead power lines. The defendant did not implement suitable control measures, such as barriers, instruction or training in operating the mobile lighting tower. Overhead powerlines had not been properly assessed or controlled, particularly following the change to nighttime working requiring the use of a mobile lighting tower. The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 14 of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 by virtue of Regulation 3. |
| 8th May | Micro company | Westminster Magistrates’ Court | Non-fatal | £20,000 | Construction | A roofer suffered life-changing injuries when he fell through an unprotected loft hatch while carrying out work on a domestic property. He had been stripping out internal insulation within the roof space, when he stepped onto the unguarded loft hatch which had not been identified or protected. He fell approximately 11 feet to the floor below, landing on his back. He fractured his L1 vertebra and his hip and has been unable to return to work since. The defendant construction company had failed to suitably plan the work at height. It did not ensure adequate measures were in place to prevent falls and had failed to provide competent supervision of the work. Those overseeing the work did not have the necessary training or experience to safely manage construction‑related activities. The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. |
| 1st May | UK | Cardiff Magistrates’ Court | Non-fatal | £280,000 | Education | Two employees developed occupational asthma because of exposure to animal allergens in the workplace whilst working for the defendant university. Between 2008 to 2025, the university failed in its duty to identify and implement suitable controls to prevent employees’ exposure to animal allergens. Both employees affected are now permanently disabled as a result, and one was unable to continue in their employment. The defendant failed to put in place adequate measures to protect workers from exposure to animal allergens, despite relevant legislation being in place since 1989 under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH), and specific guidance relating to laboratory animal workers being available since 2011. It pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. |
| 2nd April | N/A | Nottingham Magistrates’ Court | Non-fatal | £50,000 | Local authority | An employee of the defendant district council was carrying out routine maintenance in a closed graveyard. While operating a ride-on mower, the man lost control of the machine as it slid down a steep bank towards a retaining wall. Both the machine and the operative rolled over the wall, falling approximately 2.3 metres to the pavement and road below. He sustained injuries including cracked ribs. The defendant had not carried out a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks posed to employees by operating ride-on mowers on banks and slopes. It had not provided adequate information, instruction or training to employees regarding the use of such machinery near slopes and banks. No measures were in place at the retaining wall to prevent a fall from height liable to cause personal injury. The defendant pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) and section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. |
Read the previous editions updates here.
Fin