I would not be surprised if it's 7 figures.
Even 7 figures would be a drop in the ocean to them. The proceeds from selling the land for Cambourne (4500 houses) will have been fairly substantial.
I would not be surprised if it's 7 figures.
I wonder if the fact that they had a haulage company will be seen as they should know all about maintaining and checking trailers etc and will count more against them, then someone who claim to know less.A fairly obvious outcome I would say. Does the farm manager get out of this one unscathed? I don't think he would have over here, from the little bit I read his idea of maintenance seemed to be to put it all on mechanically unqualified drivers.
A bit surprising as it seems they have a haulage company as well.
Also I think I read the trailer was found to be around 22 tons in weight, is that not overloaded?
If they runn a haulage company they certainly cannot claim to be ignorant to any of the issues, so i would expect it to have a bearing.I wonder if the fact that they had a haulage company will be seen as they should know all about maintaining and checking trailers etc and will count more against them, then someone who claim to know less.
There fecking great at steering the bedder tractor into tight shedsI have never used unlatched brakes since the demise of 2wd tractors
balance your machinery correctly and they are not needed ?
Even 7 figures would be a drop in the ocean to them. The proceeds from selling the land for Cambourne (4500 houses) will have been fairly substantial.
One thought that crossed my mine is who gets the cash from said fine. The state, the family, Health & Safety ?
The judge meant that the gross was 25t. It was an 18t trailer.Trailer must have been huge to carry 25t.
Sad that employers have shown no remorse.
I believe breach of a statutory duty, means that there could be a claim, and the only thing to be decided is the amount, culpability for the claim is already decided by the finding of guilt or breach of a statutory duty. This is why the civil matters always follow the criminal.Health and safety will already have invoiced for their pre trial investigstion under the fee for intervention legislation, the prosecution costs will be applied to the court for payment and awarded against the defendent, im not sure where the fine ends up.
The family will take advice and then decide whether they have a claim, which will be considered and determined at another hearing.
Reading this thread, tragedy aside the one thing that seems to have been missed and I find shocking is that they only had to prove the brakes were a risk as it was a risk based offence.... if this is the case why are councils not hauled up in many cases for potholes posing a risk in some crashes.
I recall there was rather more to the case than this, the evidence portrayed an overloaded trailer with inoperable brakes going out of control, and a farm with no effective system for maintaining and testing trailer brakes.