IN Brief:
- A ratchet strap not intended for lifting failed while lowering a steel beam weighing more than 100kg.
- iSkate Limited was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £6,949 in prosecution costs.
- The director received a community order after HSE linked him directly to the method and worker positioning.
iSkate Limited and one of its directors have been sentenced after a worker suffered life-changing injuries when a steel beam weighing more than 100kg fell during the dismantling of an internal temporary structure.
The incident occurred at Beaverbrook Hotel and Golf Course in Leatherhead, Surrey, on 26 June 2024. Employee Natalie McCreith, who had worked for the event structure company for 14 years, sustained multiple fractures to her back, a punctured lung, and a broken leg.
McCreith underwent an 11-hour operation, spent three months in hospital, and was still recovering when the prosecution concluded. The Health and Safety Executive described the injuries as severe and life changing.
A ratchet strap was being used to lower the beam when it failed. The strap was not designed for lifting or lowering loads. HSE said company director Neil Munn selected the method, instructed workers where to stand, and continued after McCreith questioned whether the operation was safe.
The regulator found that the dismantling had not been properly planned or carried out safely. iSkate Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 16(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 by virtue of Regulation 20(1).
Guildford Magistrates’ Court fined the company £12,000 and ordered it to pay £6,949 in costs on 28 July 2026. Munn pleaded guilty to an offence under Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 through the same CDM provisions and received a community order requiring 75 hours of unpaid work.
The case turned on a straightforward equipment failure, but the underlying breach was wider. Dismantling changes the stability of a structure as members, restraints, and connections are removed. The work therefore needs a defined sequence, suitable equipment, competent supervision, and controls that keep people outside the path of any moving or falling component.
HSE guidance states that alteration, demolition, and dismantling must be planned and carried out by competent people to avoid unplanned collapse. A competent person should assess the structure before potentially load-bearing elements are altered and determine whether temporary support, bracing, or propping is required.
Written arrangements are expected before work begins. A method statement can set out the sequence, temporary supports, lifting method, exclusion zones, access, supervision, and the point at which each member can be released safely. Without that sequence, removing one component may transfer load or reduce stability elsewhere.
The distinction between restraint equipment and lifting equipment is equally important. A product used to secure an item during transport is not automatically suitable for supporting, lowering, or suspending a load. The selected accessory must be designed for the task, have an adequate rated capacity, and connect to the load in a manner that controls movement.
Worker positioning should be determined by the possible failure path rather than the intended movement alone. A beam can drop, rotate, or swing when a connection or accessory fails. Exclusion zones must therefore account for the full area into which the component could move, with no worker placed beneath or beside an inadequately controlled load.
Temporary and event structures can create false familiarity because they are repeatedly assembled and removed. Repetition may make the sequence appear routine, but it does not reduce member weight or remove the need for planning. Venue deadlines and pressure to clear a space can make shortcuts more likely precisely when the structure is entering its least stable condition.
The prosecution also shows how responsibility can extend beyond the company. Section 37 applies where a corporate health and safety offence is committed with the consent, connivance, or neglect of a director or senior officer. In this case, HSE linked Munn directly to the equipment choice, worker positioning, and decision to continue.
McCreith’s objection should have created a pause in the operation. Concerns raised by the people closest to a task are part of the available risk information, especially where the method involves heavy members and non-standard equipment. Continuing without reassessing the load, accessory, sequence, and exclusion zone removed an opportunity to prevent the accident.
HSE inspector Russell Beckett said dismantling is a high-hazard activity that can be carried out safely when properly planned, adding that the accident could have been prevented had the correct work equipment been used.
The enforcement outcome applies beyond conventional demolition contractors. Event companies, fit-out teams, facilities managers, temporary works specialists, and contractors removing internal frames all face the same need for engineered sequencing and equipment selected for its actual function.
The fine and community order close the prosecution, but the operational lesson lies in the decisions made before the beam moved. Dismantling cannot be treated as assembly in reverse when changing load paths, heavy components, and worker positions create a separate set of hazards.