A married couple whose construction firm's site in Wexford was closed for breaches of safety regulations were told by a High Court judge yesterday that only the intervention of providence had led to their being in court instead of possibly attending an employee's funeral.
Noting the large number of deaths and serious injuries on building sites in Ireland, Mr Justice Kelly said building contractors and employers would have to take their responsibilities more seriously.
He was dealing with Mr Pat Neville and Ms Bridget Neville, directors of Pat Neville and Sons, of Bannow, Co Wexford, who gave undertakings that they would comply with safety regulations in future.
The judge discharged an order made on October 8th last, closing one of the company's constructions sites at Nunns Lane, Commercial Quay, Wexford, until safety works were carried out.
The court had been told earlier that works required by the National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health had been carried out, but Mr Justice Kelly had directed that the Nevilles come to court and give undertakings on oath.
Yesterday Mr Justice Kelly said the injunction granted to the authority had restrained the carrying out of any work except measures to comply with health and safety requirements.
The evidence had demonstrated that the authority had uncovered no fewer than 20 breaches of regulations on the Nunns Quay site. The matter was made more serious by the fact that there was evidence that in April this year a prohibition notice had been served on the same company.
While the specific matters were put right, there had been a failure to comply with the legislation within a matter of months, the judge added.
He had been told that a safety officer employed by the Neville company had ceased employment in September and things deteriorated subsequently. While that might be an explanation, it was not an excuse.
Mr Justice Kelly said he required the Nevilles to do no more than comply with the law of the land. He hoped, having given their undertakings under oath, that the solemnity and seriousness of their position was brought home to them.
From the authority's point of view, the giving of undertakings also meant that if there was a failure in future by the firm to comply with its obligations, an application could be made to the High Court either for the seizure of the company's assets or the committal to prison of its directors. He was satisfied that the Nevilles realised the seriousness of their position.
It had been indicated that the company would employ a firm of safety specialists until they employed a full-time safety officer again.
But this would not absolve the directors of limited companies from ensuring that the companies complied with statutory obligations.
Mr Justice Kelly added that the Nevilles had not sought to evade their responsibilities and were entitled to credit for that.