Insights That Drive Safer, Safe Decisions
The New Reality for Very Large Organisations:
When Health & Safety Fines Become Strategic Threats
Our perspective on the latest sentencing guidelines for Very Large Organisations.
Published: June 16, 2025
The health and safety landscape has fundamentally shifted. For Very Large Organisations (VLOs), the traditional approach of viewing H&S fines as merely a cost of doing business is not only outdated—it's financially dangerous.
The latest sentencing guidelines represent a paradigm shift that every board member, CEO, and risk professional must understand.
Decoding the "Very Large Organisation" Threshold
What defines a VLO?
The guidelines deliberately avoid prescriptive thresholds beyond the £50 million turnover mark that distinguishes large companies. Instead, they employ a principle that should concern every major organisation: "it will be obvious."
This intentional ambiguity isn't bureaucratic vagueness—it's strategic design. If your organisation wields significant market influence, employs thousands, or operates across multiple jurisdictions, you're likely in VLO territory. The implications are profound: courts will calibrate penalties not just to punish, but to genuinely impact organisations of your scale and resources.
The Financial Reality: Proportionality from Day One
The critical transformation lies in how fines are calculated. Previously, courts might begin with standard 'large company' penalties and adjust upward. Now, proportionality assessment occurs at the outset of sentencing, meaning judges immediately consider your organisation's vast financial capacity when determining the starting point.
This isn't about incremental increases, it's about establishing fines that create genuine boardroom concern.
The objective is deterrence through impact: penalties substantial enough to make the cost of non-compliance demonstrably exceed any perceived savings from regulatory shortcuts.
For context, recent cases suggest VLO fines can reach multiple millions, with some exceeding £10 million for serious breaches.
These figures aren't outliers they're the new baseline for organisations of scale.
The Hidden Catalyst: Psychosocial Risks as Systemic Vulnerabilities
While these guidelines encompass all H&S domains, I want to spotlight an often-overlooked area that poses particular risk for VLOs: psychosocial safety.
Workplace stress, inadequate mental health support, and toxic organisational cultures aren't peripheral HR concerns—they're material health and safety risks. For VLOs, these risks carry amplified consequences. A systemic psychosocial failure can simultaneously affect thousands of employees, creating a harm profile that courts will view as exponentially more serious than isolated incidents.
Consider the mathematics: if poor workplace culture contributes to widespread stress-related illness, the 'harm' component of any H&S breach multiplies dramatically. Courts increasingly recognise psychological harm as equivalent to physical injury, and the scale effect for VLOs makes this particularly perilous.
This is why frameworks like ISO 45003 have evolved from best practice to business necessity. Robust psychosocial risk management demonstrates due diligence, systematic risk mitigation, and genuine commitment to workforce wellbeing. In an environment of escalating financial penalties, this isn't just compliance—it's balance sheet protection.
Strategic Imperatives: From Compliance to Competitive Advantage
The business case for comprehensive H&S investment—particularly psychosocial safety—has fundamentally changed. What was once viewed as a cost centre is now a strategic investment with measurable ROI.
Consider the total cost of a major H&S breach for a VLO:
- Direct fines: Potentially £10+ million
- Legal costs: Often matching or exceeding the fine itself
- Reputational damage: Quantified through lost contracts, partnerships, and market value
- Talent exodus: High performers leaving, recruitment difficulties, increased compensation demands
- Operational disruption: Investigation periods, management distraction, regulatory oversight
Against this backdrop, investing in mature safety culture isn't expenditure—it's risk mitigation with demonstrable returns. Organisations with advanced psychosocial safety frameworks report higher employee engagement, reduced absenteeism, improved productivity, and enhanced innovation capacity.
The Path Forward: Building Antifragile Safety Culture
True safety maturity extends beyond compliance to create what I term "antifragile" organisations—those that don't just withstand safety challenges but emerge stronger from them.
This requires:
Cultural Integration: Safety isn't a department—it's a organisational capability embedded in every decision and process.
Proactive Risk Intelligence: Advanced monitoring systems that identify psychosocial risks before they manifest as harm.
Leadership Accountability: Executive performance metrics tied directly to safety outcomes, not just lagging indicators.
Continuous Evolution: Regular reassessment and enhancement of safety systems as your organisation grows and changes.
Why This Matters Now
The convergence of enhanced penalties, increased regulatory scrutiny, and evolving workforce expectations creates an inflection point. VLOs that recognise this shift and act decisively will secure competitive advantage. Those that don't face potentially existential risks.
The question isn't whether your organisation can afford to invest in comprehensive H&S and psychosocial safety it's whether you can afford not to.
Principal Designers: Why the URS v BDW Supreme Court Ruling Should Be on Your Radar
Published: May 28, 2025
The UK construction industry has just witnessed a pivotal moment. On May 21, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd—a decision poised to fundamentally reshape liability, limitation periods, and professional duties across the built environment.
While this case has understandably garnered extensive legal commentary, its implications stretch far beyond the courtroom. This ruling is a profound reminder of the expectations we hold for ourselves—and for each other—as dutyholders in design, safety, and construction.
At Fortis & Noble, we specialise in navigating the complex intersection of safety leadership, design assurance, and project risk. This judgment directly impacts these critical areas, and we've distilled its real-world significance for you below.
What the Supreme Court Confirmed: The Core Tenets of the Ruling
The Supreme Court's decision clarified several key legal points, solidifying the proactive stance of the Building Safety Act 2022.
1. Liability Can Now Stretch to 30 Years The Court unequivocally affirmed that the extended 30-year limitation period, introduced by the Building Safety Act 2022 under its amendments to the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA), applies not only to direct DPA claims but also to associated negligence and contribution claims. This retroactive application for defects on dwellings completed before June 28, 2022, represents a significant extension of professional exposure.
- Impact: Dutyholders, particularly those involved in design decisions, can now face legal action decades after a project's completion if the issues relate to fundamental life safety and the fitness for habitation of a dwelling. This demands a radical shift in long-term risk management and documentation.
2. "Voluntary" Remediation Does Not Nullify Responsibility URS Corporation Ltd argued that BDW Trading Ltd (Barratt Redrow) had conducted remedial works on buildings it no longer owned, making these actions "voluntary" and too remote to warrant recovery. The Supreme Court firmly rejected this. The ruling makes it clear that if a party undertakes action to prevent foreseeable harm, mitigate reputational damage, or address an ongoing safety risk, such actions are entirely justifiable.
- Impact: This point reinforces that a dutyholder's responsibility for their work does not diminish merely because another party voluntarily steps in to rectify defects. The original duty of care remains active, and those initially responsible can still be held liable for the costs of such necessary remediation.
3. Developers Are Also Owed a Duty of Care URS further contended that their design duty only extended to homeowners or residents. The Court dismissed this argument, confirming that developers, as clients commissioning the work, can indeed be owed a duty of care under Section 1 of the DPA.
- Impact: This broadens the scope of professional responsibility. It reaffirms that accountability for safe and fit-for-purpose design applies throughout the project chain, not just to the end-user. Principal Designers must ensure their design coordination and advice are robust for all stakeholders.
What This Means for Principal Designers and Consultants
This judgment unequivocally redefines the long-term exposure and accountability inherent in the design process. It crystallises what many experienced professionals within our field have long understood: mere compliance with minimum standards is insufficient. You need demonstrable evidence, clear context, and unwavering leadership in your decision-making.
For Principal Designers, particularly under the stringent requirements of CDM 2015 and the enhanced duties of the Building Safety Act, this means:
- Meticulous Record-Keeping: Instituting systems for structured, timestamped records of all key design decisions, including the rationale behind them.
- Documenting Risk Management: Clearly logging how design risks were identified, thoroughly assessed, effectively escalated, and definitively resolved.
- Transparent Coordination: Capturing evidence of all internal and external coordination activities, including design reviews, workshops, and information exchanges.
- Exercising Professional Judgement: Providing clear documentation of where professional judgement or challenge was exercised, demonstrating proactive risk mitigation rather than simply 'ticking boxes'.
This isn't about generating unnecessary administrative burden. It's about building a robust, defensible "golden thread" of information – being able to demonstrate, five, ten, even thirty years later, why a specific decision was made and that it was reasonable and appropriate at the time, based on the information available.
Accountability Is Now Measurable
This Supreme Court ruling doesn't fundamentally alter the imperative to act responsibly; instead, it reinforces that being proactive, transparent, and thoroughly documented is now the only truly safe and defensible position.
At Fortis & Noble, we've observed firsthand how easily cultural blind spots or fragmented records can escalate into significant legacy risks. The industry now has decisive judicial backing that firmly aligns with what truly good practice has always demanded: clear thinking, traceable action, and accountable leadership.
If you are reviewing your current design assurance processes, assessing historic liability exposure, or seeking to fortify your professional risk profile in light of this critical judgment, we would be glad to support you.
Contact Us:
info@fortisandnoble.com
0208 0589 9053
#BuildingSafety #DutyOfCare #SupremeCourt #PrincipalDesigner #DefectivePremisesAct #ConstructionLaw #DesignRisk #Accountability #LegalUpdate #InfrastructureLeadership