Stockline explosion: Factory owners lose compensation payouts case

Phil Black - PII Editor 27/09/2013

202 3 minutes read

Listen to this article

The owners of a plastics factory which exploded with the loss of nine lives have lost a legal battle to force one of its suppliers to pay them compensation.

ICL Plastics Ltd wanted Johnston Oils to make a contribution to the payments made to those who were injured in the May 2004 blast at the Stockline Factory in Maryhill, Glasgow.

Johnston Oils supplied ICL Plastics with liquid petroleum gas (LPG), a chemical which was used in the manufacturing process at Stockline.

The LPG was stored in underground pipes which leaked due to their poor condition. Health and safety experts concluded that the leaks from the pipes caused the explosion.

Lawyers acting for ICL wanted Johnston Oils to hand cash over to them so they could pay people who were injured in the explosion. They told the Court of Session that Johnston Oils had a duty to inspect and maintain the faulty pipes.

However, judges disagreed saying the plant owners were responsible for the upkeep of the pipes.

In a written judgment issued at the Court of Session on Wednesday, judge Lord Hodge said Stockline bosses had previously ignored warnings about the conditions of the underground pipes.

He wrote: “I am not persuaded that the pursuers have established that, if Johnston Oils had advised them in 1998 or 2002 to investigate the state of the underground pipes, they would have acted in a way which would have averted the tragedy.”

The ICL Plastics factory exploded on May 11, 2004. Nine people were killed, including two company directors. A total of 33 people were injured, 15 of them seriously. Experts concluded that the blast happened because of LPG leaking from underground pipes. The presence of LPG in the air caused the explosion, it was determined.

The company went to the Court of Session earlier in 2013 in a bid to recover a contribution from Johnston Oils towards the payment of £191,451 to Archibald Lindsay, a survivor of the explosion. The court heard that the legal action was a “test” case for payments to other people who were caught up in the blast.

Lawyers argued that Johnston Oils were legally obliged to contribute towards payments. But the court heard that Johnston Oils only started to supply ICL with LPG in February 1998.

It also heard the Health and Safety Executive had warned ICL about the conditions of its pipes in the years before 1998.

Lord Hodge wrote: “The pursuers took no steps to monitor, inspect and maintain the underground pipeline after they received a clear warning from the Health and Safety Executive in 1989.

“It was not the practice of suppliers to give their commercial customers advice on the maintenance of the pipework and gas supply system which the customers owned.

“The central issue in this case is whether the common law duty of care of such suppliers and in particular Johnston Oils for the safety of people in the vicinity of the gas supply system imposed on the suppliers duties to inquire about the condition of the customer”s pipework and to give unsolicited advice to the customer to investigate and maintain it.

“I therefore conclude that Johnston Oils did not owe the duties of care to the injured parties on which the pursuers have built their case.”

Comment from Declan Barry, ATEX Explosion Hazards Ltd UK

Are subcontractors responsible “in contributory negligence” to the state of their clients plant safety. Many times plant operators request contractors to carry out inspections or pass on, maintenance, of their plant to sub-contractors. There are many dusty inspection reports not acted on, year on year throughout industry. It is clear that the primary responsibility for plant safety lies with the employer. Dissolving responsibility reduces the onus on plant employers to keep their sites safe. They will not spend the money to keep their plant safe, if they can directly or indirectly pass the buck, it’s just simple human nature.