This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7954814.stm
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Total liable for Buncefield blast | Total liable for Buncefield blast |
| (20 minutes later) | |
| The High Court has ruled that the oil company Total is liable for damages caused by the explosion at the Buncefield oil depot in Hertfordshire. | The High Court has ruled that the oil company Total is liable for damages caused by the explosion at the Buncefield oil depot in Hertfordshire. |
| The Hemel Hempstead site was the scene of an explosion which injured 40 people and left homes and businesses damaged. | |
| The blast in 2005 was the largest in Europe since the end of World War II. | The blast in 2005 was the largest in Europe since the end of World War II. |
| The depot was owned by Total and Chevron in a joint venture called Hertfordshire Oil Storage Ltd (HOSL), but was operated by Total. | |
| The ignition of the vapour cloud which followed the spillage of 300 tons of petrol, caused an explosion which measured 2.4 on the Richter Scale. | The ignition of the vapour cloud which followed the spillage of 300 tons of petrol, caused an explosion which measured 2.4 on the Richter Scale. |
| Advertisement | Advertisement |
| Amateur video of the Buncefield fire in December 2005 | Amateur video of the Buncefield fire in December 2005 |
| The High Court hearing was over a dispute between Total and Chevron as to who was liable for the agreed acts of negligence that led to the spillage and explosion. | The High Court hearing was over a dispute between Total and Chevron as to who was liable for the agreed acts of negligence that led to the spillage and explosion. |
| Chevron claimed Total was to blame, while Total said the joint venture company HOSL should bear responsibility. | Chevron claimed Total was to blame, while Total said the joint venture company HOSL should bear responsibility. |
| The court said Total had failed to discharge the burden of establishing that HOSL was responsible for the negligence of the supervisor. | The court said Total had failed to discharge the burden of establishing that HOSL was responsible for the negligence of the supervisor. |
| It found that all those working at the site had contracts with Total; the terminal manager who was the most senior member of staff on site was appointed by Total and line managed by Total. | It found that all those working at the site had contracts with Total; the terminal manager who was the most senior member of staff on site was appointed by Total and line managed by Total. |
| All safety instructions were developed by Total. | All safety instructions were developed by Total. |
| The court also found there was a further contributory fault due to the failure by Total's head office staff to develop an adequate system for preventing the overfilling of a tank. | The court also found there was a further contributory fault due to the failure by Total's head office staff to develop an adequate system for preventing the overfilling of a tank. |
| It also said Total was not entitled to recover a contractual indemnity from HOSL or Chevron in respect of all or any part of the claim. | It also said Total was not entitled to recover a contractual indemnity from HOSL or Chevron in respect of all or any part of the claim. |