High street retailer loses appeal against a record £400,000 fine for Fire Safety breaches

A major high street retailers appeal against its record £400,000 fine for fire safety breaches at its Oxford Street store was dismissed last week (Thursday 17th), with the Court of Appeal saying the fine was not excessive in view of the company’s “lamentable” performance of fire safety duties.

In a significant judgement for responsible persons under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the court decided that the level of the fine was not excessive in relation to the seriousness of the offences, the size and nature of the company, and the risk to the public which the company ran. The court also held that the fine was not out of kilter with those for offences under general health and safety legislation where there was a risk of death or serious injury.

The conviction of the company last November followed a fire at its Oxford Street store on 26 April 2009, which resulted in a chaotic evacuation of some 400 people, the closure part of Oxford Street for two days, and the eventual demolition of the building. The company was subsequently prosecuted and pleaded guilty to two main counts under the Fire Safety Order – failing to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, and failing to ensure that employees were given adequate fire safety training. Other alleged detailed breaches were taken into account under these two counts.

The Court of Appeal concluded that while it accepted that the fire itself was not caused by the retailer’s breaches of duty, (the cause of the fire has never been established) the offences were serious enough to create a magnitude of risk in which death and serious injury in the fire was avoided by luck.

The appeal judges also agreed with the trial judge that a starting point for a fine in these circumstances was £600,000. This was rightly reduced to £400,000 in view of nobody being killed or injured, the company pleading guilty and co-operating with the investigation at the earliest opportunity, and the company demonstrating that it had taken significant steps to remedy fire safety shortcomings across its stores.

While maintaining that the principles of setting the level of fines under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 were similar to those for the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the court said the trial judge was right to recognise “that the nature of the risk that employees and others were to be protected was the risk from death or serious injury in a fire. Fire can be indiscriminate in its effect and, in the case of an organisation which in the centre of a large city undertakes responsibility for large numbers of visitors to its premises, breaches will usually be a very serious matter.”

The Court of Appeal concluded: “We share the judge’s view that the appellant’s performance of its fire safety duties in a large department store in the centre of London was lamentable. The fines were, we recognise, severe, but they were not on our judgement manifestly excessive and the appeal is dismissed.”

In a statement issued after the judgement, the retailer said:

"We are committed to putting the health and safety of customers and employees first. Although the appeal against the fine was unsuccessful, we note that the original 35 alleged breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRFSO) were reduced to 2 offences and at no time has it been alleged that the company was either responsible for the fire, or that its breaches of the RRFSO caused the fire."