23 March 2012 / Gerard Forlin

Issue: 7506 / Categories: Features , Health & safety , Regulatory

printer

mail-detail

Too hot to handle?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

istock_000009520036medium_4

The heat is on for organisations & individuals who do not pay heed to fire safety precautions, notes Gerard Forlin QC

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (2005 Order) came into force on 1 October 2006, replacing regulations made under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 (FPA 1971). This order was made pursuant to the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (RRA 2001) to be in compliance with the EU directive on fire safety in the workplace and business premises. There have been a series of recent cases where the fines have been gradually ramping up.

First relevant case?

Arguably, the first relevant case fell under the previous legislation. In R v ESB Hotels Ltd [2005] EWCA Crim 132, [2005] All ER (D) 159 (Jan) owners of a hotel pleaded guilty to two counts of contravening the requirements of a Fire Certificate, contrary to s 4 of FPA 1971. Bed mattresses had been stored in various corridors. Investigators found that the hotel staff did not appear to have a complete understanding of the potential fire hazard. The seat of the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Too hot to handle?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

istock_000009520036medium_4

The heat is on for organisations & individuals who do not pay heed to fire safety precautions, notes Gerard Forlin QC

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (2005 Order) came into force on 1 October 2006, replacing regulations made under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 (FPA 1971). This order was made pursuant to the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (RRA 2001) to be in compliance with the EU directive on fire safety in the workplace and business premises. There have been a series of recent cases where the fines have been gradually ramping up.

First relevant case?

Arguably, the first relevant case fell under the previous legislation. In R v ESB Hotels Ltd [2005] EWCA Crim 132, [2005] All ER (D) 159 (Jan) owners of a hotel pleaded guilty to two counts of contravening the requirements of a Fire Certificate, contrary to s 4 of FPA 1971. Bed mattresses had been stored in various corridors. Investigators found that the hotel staff did not appear to have a complete understanding of the potential fire hazard. The seat of the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS

NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’

Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot

NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake

The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’

NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’

A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes

NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?

After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent

NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?

Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25

back-to-top-scroll