Updated: Laing O'Rourke pays £101,000 for shop collapse

Prosecutions and Claims |
13.03.2008

Construction firm Laing O'Rourke has been fined £60,000 after work to build luxury flats caused part of a Bristol shoe shop to collapse.

The firm was excavating footings for a new development behind the shop in Clifton when the storeroom collapsed.

Bristol Crown Court heard that Laing O'Rourke was the contractor on the Swan Hill Homes development, and the Waterman Partnership were acting as structural engineers on the project.

The three companies had identified the need for a restraining wall to be built to support the shop's storeroom but the work went ahead without any such support.

On 22 November 2002, less than a day after work started, the storeroom of the shoe shop collapsed.

An HSE investigation revealed that the original idea of a retaining wall had been rejected because it would have cost £150,000. Together the three firms considered various other options but ultimately decided to go ahead with an unsupported excavation.

"It was a failure in cooperation between all of the parties," HSE inspector Steve Fraine told HSP. "It was a failure to share information and a failure to share responsibility for decision taking.

"All the parties involved have something to learn from this; it was a collective failure."

Laing O'Rourke admitted breaching Regulation 9 of the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations, which covers the stability of structures. On 5 March the firm was fined £60,000 plus £16,000 legal costs and £25,000 for the cost of the HSE's investigation.

Judge Carol Hagen said, "The decision to excavate without any support was a wrong one. In mitigation, it was described as a misjudgement. I find that to be an apt description.

"As a matter of great fortune, no one was injured. Had it happened during working hours, there was a considerable risk of injury."

Judge Hagen accepted that Laing O'Rourke was proactive in promoting safety.

"There is no question here of profit before safety. The decision to excavate was not taken hastily but after due consultation and discussion with others.

"The company admitted responsibility from the outset and their chief executive used his best endeavours to minimise the consequential loss to [the shop's owner]."