Skiing Company Fined After Boy’s Tragic Death at Birthday Party

An indoor skiing company has received a £100,000 fine following an accident in which a 12-year-old boy died.

The boy was at a tobogganing party to celebrate a friend’s birthday. He was descending the main ski slope on a toboggan when it ran into the back of a member of staff who was…

Apr 17, 2025

Pexels zszen 12165452 1024x682

An indoor skiing company has received a £100,000 fine following an accident in which a 12-year-old boy died.

The boy was at a tobogganing party to celebrate a friend’s birthday. He was descending the main ski slope on a toboggan when it ran into the back of a member of staff who was conducting a slope walk. The member of staff fell backwards onto the boy, who tragically died at the scene from head injuries.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive found that the company had failed to ensure the safety of its customers while they were tobogganing at the venue. It did not have a suitable and sufficient risk assessment for tobogganing activities and had not fully considered all persons likely to be on the slope during tobogganing. As a result, there was no safe system of work, information, instruction, training or supervision to manage the risk of collisions between toboggans and pedestrians.

The company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. It was fined £100,000 and ordered to pay costs of £14,534.

Foster Panel Chair an Independent Officeholder, Not an Employee

The distinction between an independent officeholder and an employee could hardly be more important but is sometimes difficult to discern. That was certainly so in the case of a woman who served for many years as an independent chair of a local authority’s fostering panel. After her appointment was terminated, the woman lodged an Employment Tribunal (ET) complaint against the council, alleging unfair dismissal and breach of contract. The council denied her claims and, at a preliminary hearing,…

Restrictive Covenants and Employers’ Legitimate Business Interests

When it comes to considering the enforceability or otherwise of restrictive covenants in employment contracts, judges are required to focus on the need of employers to protect their legitimate business interests. The Court of Appeal emphasised that point in a guideline case. A software company sought a pre-trial injunction against a former employee, alleging that he had breached a non-compete covenant in his employment contract. The covenant forbade him from working for a competitor for 12…

ET Should Have Considered Redeployment as Alternative to Dismissal

There are times when it is incumbent on an Employment Tribunal (ET) to consider a point of its own accord if the parties in the case have not raised it. In a recent case, a postal worker successfully argued before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that the ET should have considered whether redeploying him would have been a suitable alternative to dismissal. The man had worked for his employer for more than 25 years. After several periods of absence between 2015 and 2019, some of which were…