The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has lost an attempt to challenge against costs it was ordered to pay due to its “improper conduct” in bringing a trial that collapsed against Falcon Tower Crane Services over the deaths of three men.
The watchdog had applied for judicial review to challenge the costs order of £587,382 handed to it after a trial at Chester Crown Court against Falcon was thrown out in November 2024.
Sitting at the administrative court in Manchester, deputy high court Judge Karen Ridge has rejected its application on the grounds that the original judge’s decision was “a careful, evaluative and holistic assessment” of the evidence.
Falcon had been charged with two health and safety breaches after three employees died following the crane collapse at a Seddon site on Dunwoody Way, Crewe, Cheshire, in June 2017.
The HSE’s case hinged on Falcon having not appointed an appropriate person (AP) to oversee the preparation of the method statement for crane erection.
Falcon contended that its employee Alan Ridgway was the AP, whereas the HSE alleged he had not been properly appointed as the AP.
Ridgway was the HSE’s key prosecution witness, but he changed his evidence completely when, during cross-examination, he accepted that he was the AP, the court heard.
It led to the HSE offering no further evidence and the trial judge, the Honorary Recorder of Chester, Judge Steven Everett, directing the jury to return not guilty verdicts on both counts.
The High Court heard Judge Everett concluded that there had been “unnecessary acts or omissions by the HSE which were stark and which constituted improper conduct”, causing him to make the costs award requested by Falcon.
The HSE applied for judicial review against Chester Crown Court on two grounds.
Firstly, that it was “irrational” of the judge to make the costs order on the basis that the HSE’s decision to bring the prosecution amounted to “unnecessary or improper conduct”.
Secondly, that the decision to award costs in the sum of £587,382 was unreasonable in all the circumstances.
An initial attempt to seek judicial review was initially refused on 1 October 2025.
However, following the conclusion of an inquest into their deaths last October where the coroner concluded Ridgway had introduced himself as “site inspector” and not as an “AP”, the HSE renewed its claim.
Judge Ridge said the HSE was relying on “one narrow piece of evidence” – that the coroner had come to a different conclusion on the same evidence.
Having considered the evidence, she found Judge Everett’s conclusion that the HSE had “made a series of stark and clear errors” was reasonable.
“Critically he [the judge] concluded that no reasonable prosecutor would have made the decision to prosecute,” she said.
