header-logo header-logo

13 December 2007
Issue: 7300 / Categories: Legal News , Health & safety , Professional negligence
printer mail-detail

Corporate manslaughter fines could force firms out

News

Plans to fine first-time offenders up to 10% of their annual turnover for corporate manslaughter offences could force companies to leave the UK and move their headquarters elsewhere, if enacted, lawyers say.
The Sentencing Advisory Panel has drawn up proposals—currently out for consultation—which would see fines of 2.5%–10% of average annual turnover imposed for an offence of corporate manslaughter. When sentencing for an offence under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 involving death, meanwhile, the fine range would be 1%–7.5% of average annual turnover.

Gerard Forlin, barrister at 2-3 Gray’s Inn Square, says: “This is of fundamental importance to organisations operating in the UK and some may reflect on continuing to have their major headquarters here.”
He says the proposed fines—which would be in line for those imposed for competition offences—cannot rely on a deterrent effect since “some people working in very dangerous environments feel they cannot do much more”.
Forlin believes this could be the final straw which, on top of high taxes, terrorist threats, high workforce costs and more, forces companies to move their UK bases.

However, Jeff Zindani, managing director of Forum Law, argues that the fine range is unlikely to have much of a deterrent effect on companies but “demonstrates yet again the weakness of this legislation”.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll