header-logo header-logo

25 February 2010
Issue: 7406 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Publicity threat looms

Companies convicted of corporate manslaughter could be forced to advertise their conviction, under new government measures introduced this month.

Companies convicted of corporate manslaughter could be forced to advertise their conviction, under new government measures introduced this month.

The new regime means courts can now hand out Publicity Orders to firms and public bodies where gross corporate health and safety failures have caused a person’s death. Companies can already be hit with an unlimited fine or be forced to improve safety in the workplace. The orders could be used to compel companies to publicise details of the case, the fine imposed, and any remedial work they have undertaken. Local authorities, hospital trusts and police forces could be forced to inform residents about the conviction.

Gerard Forlin, barrister at 2–3 Gray’s Inn Square, says the intent is to deter companies from entering into behaviour that could lead to a prosecution in the first place. “This will have an impact because companies will worry about what their shareholders think, higher insurance premiums and difficulties with tendering for future work, although the newspaper reports would cover the large corporations anyway.

“The biggest impact will possibly be felt on smaller, more localised organisations where the publicity may not otherwise have been so widely disseminated,” he says.

Issue: 7406 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

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