Hartlepool Chemical Manufacturer Fined £50,000 After Two Serious Incidents

The Health and Safety Executive said the first incident happened on 3 September 2021 at the company’s Haverton Hill site in Billingham, where an employee suffered an amputation injury when four fingers on his left hand were severed during machinery start-up. HSE’s account says the blades of a rotary valve had not been effectively isolated from the power supply while the production line was being prepared between cleaning operations.

Less than three months later, on 24 November 2021, a second employee was struck by a forklift truck at the company’s Brenda Road site in Hartlepool. The driver’s view was obscured by the load being carried and the driver was unaware a pedestrian was walking in front of the vehicle at the time of the collision.

What HSE Said Went Wrong

HSE’s investigation into the Billingham incident concluded the company had not put suitable procedures in place to isolate dangerous machinery between cleaning operations. In practical terms, that means isolation and verification steps did not reliably prevent moving parts from being energised while workers were exposed to risk.

A separate investigation into the Hartlepool collision found the company had not effectively managed forklift operations and designated pedestrian routes. Where forklifts and pedestrians share space, site layout, visibility, and segregation measures often determine whether a near miss becomes a serious injury.

Why This Matters for Chemical Manufacturing Operations

These incidents sit in two common risk categories for chemical and process sites: hazardous machinery during routine interventions, and vehicle movements in busy yards and production areas. HSE pointed to its guidance on safe isolation of plant and equipment, and to guidance on workplace transport safety, both of which emphasise clear procedures, training, and physical controls that make safe behaviour the default.

For duty holders, the compliance lesson is not limited to the immediate equipment or vehicle involved. The pattern is about how organisations manage recurring tasks such as cleaning changeovers and internal logistics, particularly when time pressure encourages shortcuts or when the “normal” way of working is not adequately captured in risk assessments.

Summary

Exwold Technology pleaded guilty to two breaches of Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £50,000 at Teesside Magistrates’ Court on 29 January 2026. The case underlines the need to maintain robust isolation procedures for moving machinery and to design forklift operations so pedestrian protection does not depend on perfect visibility.