0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

impact of Covid-19 upon level of fine

13 August 2020

Please note: the information contained in this legal update is correct as of the original date of publication.

Two cases have considered the issue of Covid 19 as part of the sentencing exercise.

In the most recent, failures by a principal contractor Modus Workspace, who design and refit refurbishments, led to a £1.1 million fine after an engineer was injured from a fall from a roof.

The judge when applying the 3 stage test under the sentencing guidelines considered whether the fine ought to be reduced to reflect a likely halving of the company’s projected annual turnover as a result of Covid-19. She relied on a letter from the company’s auditors setting out the impact of the pandemic on their projected trading and sales which was reduced substantially compared to their projected forecast from the start of the year.

Ultimately, the information put forward by Modus was insufficient to warrant a reduction in fine. In the judge’s view, on the facts before her, the impact of Covid upon the company’s finances was only relevant to the period of time over which the fine could be paid. Even then, this was only on the basis that the company’s turnover may decrease. The judge was of the view that “at this stage it is too early to say what the long term effect will be”.

The issue of Covid had previously been considered earlier in the case of IFG Drake's Victoria Mills in July 2020, following a factory fatality. Here, Judge Stubbs was described as troubled as to how he should approach the effect of Covid-19 in the sentencing process. He stated that step 3 of the 3 stage test was the appropriate point at which to address the Covid-19 issues and that Covid-19 itself, was an appropriate factor to consider, when deciding whether the proposed fine was proportionate to the offender’s overall means.

He ultimately accepted that one must look at the overall economic situation. As a result of the identified drop in turnover and predicted profit margin of IFG, he reduced the fine.

These cases highlight the obvious relevance of Covid-19 when determining a suitable punishment/fine for a H&S offence.

Whilst the impact of the pandemic is a factor which can be considered, it is by no means a guarantee that the fine will be reduced. A company which is being prosecuted by the HSE ought to be thinking at an early stage whether their finances are such that they would want to make submissions about the impact of Covid 19 and if so, present early and clear evidence to spell the position out.

A Judge will want to understand the company’s overall economic situation and a statement from the Finance Director or a company accountant to show a clear picture of impact and forecasts is essential if a reduction in penalty is sought.

Coronavirus support

We are helping across business, health, education and government sectors:

related opinions

Credit broking: know your permissions

To operate lawfully, firms that broker credit to consumers by way of business must be registered with and authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

View blog

Does Ossett United FC’s decision open the floodgates for claims by injured sports players?

Ossett United FC is a football club based in Yorkshire, playing in the Northern Premier League. On 12 November 2019, they lost a claim for damages brought by Rees Welsh, a semi-professional player from an opposing team.

View blog

When does misconduct by a professional amount to professional misconduct?

The Court of Appeal has considered what amounts to professional conduct for the purposes of the MHPS in the case of Idu –v- The East Suffolk & North Essex NHS Foundation Trust.
The allegations raised against the Appellant surgeon included, amongst others, refusals to follow management instructions and inappropriate (rude, uncivil, and, on occasions, aggressive) verbal and written communications.

View blog

SFO fail to secure individual criminal convictions following Deferred Prosecution Agreement

On 16 July 2019 the Serious Fraud Office released details of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement reached with Sarclad Ltd in July 2016.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up