HSE Injunctions: A new tool in the enforcement toolbox?

The Health & Safety Executive (“HSE”) has obtained its first injunction under the Building Safety Act 2022: a court order which prevented students from occupying residential accommodation (Deakin’s Yard) owned by Integritas Property Group (“IPG”), the Defendant to this court case. 

The novelty of this case is that the HSE, as Building Safety Regulator, had not previously sought to obtain an injunction before. The Court had to consider, therefore, whether the Regulator had the right to obtain one. Having concluded that the HSE does have this right then (provided the Court finds that the relevant criteria for granting an injunction are met) this case appears to have ‘unlocked’ a new tool in the health & safety regulatory toolkit.

The facts of this case are somewhat unusual. The injunction was obtained on 12 August, following a history of con-compliance (see below), and concerns that IPG were planning on letting rooms in Deakin’s Yard as early as mid-August 2025 without a building ‘completion certificate’, an offence under the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”).

Nevertheless, we can envisage that having unlocked this new tool (at least in appropriate cases), the HSE (and indeed other regulators) may be examining the circumstances in which an injunction might be preferable alongside statutory notices. Whilst obtaining an injunction requires urgent litigation and therefore potentially a significant upfront time/cost, there are aspects of injunctions (such as relative ease of enforcement if breached, when compared to criminal proceedings for breach of the BSA and health and safety law) which might make them an attractive option.

Background to the injunction

In the hearings before the Court on 11 and 12 August 2025, the HSE applied for the injunction against IPG ‘without notice’ (i.e. without IPG being told beforehand) because the HSE became aware of evidence suggesting IPG were planning on letting rooms in Deakin’s Yard as early as 15 August 2025 without the required completion certificate.

The HSE adduced evidence to the court of a history of compliance issues with Deakin’s Yard:

• After Deakin’s Yard received approval for construction in 2015, in September 2022, inspectors found significant fire safety defects. In 2023, IPG purchased Deakin’s Yard. Further concerns surrounding the condition of the building and standard of workmanship led to a contravention notice being issued to IPG in March 2024. 

• IPG’s failure to resolve the issues in the contravention notice led to a cancellation notice in July 2024, requiring building work to cease. Despite this, the local authority found evidence of construction activity continuing. 

• A stop notice was served on IPG in October 2024. Subsequent applications were made by IPG for building control approval, though these were not approved as the applications did not have sufficient information.

• In June 2025, the BSR became aware that IPG were advertising Deakin’s Yard for occupation in August 2025 and the HSE interviewed a director of IPG under caution. The HSE alleged that IPG provided incorrect and misleading information during this interview. 

HSE’s ability to obtain an injunction

In determining whether to grant the HSE the interim injunction, the Court first considered whether the HSE had power to obtain this injunction. Typically, a local authority may obtain an injunction in relation to building control and planning under express statutory powers. However, in this case, the local authority had not decided whether to act and acknowledged the BSR was the lead Regulator to enforce building safety. 

For the HSE, neither the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (“HSWA”), nor BSA, contained express powers to injunction an organisation. However, the Court acknowledged there was a serious arguable case that the HSE had ‘sufficient standing’ (the relevant legal test) to seek an injunction in light of its statutory function to prevent breaches of HSWA or the BSA, especially where there is strong evidence that the offence is imminent. The Court recognised, based on the evidence, there was a real risk and likelihood that IPG would cause Deakin’s Yard to be occupied unless it was restrained. 

The Court decided to grant the HSE the interim injunction, exercising its equitable jurisdiction to do so, and applied principles of American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd (the standard legal test for an injunction) to conclude that the injustice of not granting an injunction far outweighed the injustice of the injunction, and principles in Broad Idea International Ltd v Convoy Collateral Ltd (concerning the Court’s jurisdiction to grant injunctions). 

Takeaways 

[1] Don’t ignore the Regulator. IPG intended to let rooms without the required completion certificate, which would have been an offence under the BSA. Previous enforcement steps (contravention, cancellation, and ‘stop notices’ under the BSA) had failed to secure compliance. 

[2] Injunctions as a last resort: We expect that reliance on the Regulators’ traditional toolkit (wide and powerful powers to obtain evidence, and powers to serve various types of notice to force organisations to improve their practices and/or cease dangerous practices) will remain the starting point, particularly given that they do not require court action and there are criminal consequences for failure to adhere to them.  However, an injunction issued by the High Court may also be an effective tool in appropriate cases. Breaching an injunction amounts to ‘contempt of court’ and may result in serious penalties.

[3] Precedent for future enforcement? Notably, as of January 2026, the BSR is now independent from the HSE. However, it will be interesting to see how this case sets a precedent for these Regulators.

--------------------------

If you would like to discuss the implications of any matters discussed in this article, please contact Charlotte Whitaker or Lloyd Nail in Burges Salmon’s Corporate Crime & Investigations team.   This article was written by Akosua Moore and Lloyd Nail in Burges Salmon’s Corporate Crime & Investigations team. 

"What sets the Health and Safety team at Burgess Salmon LLP apart is its rare combination of technical excellence, sectoral breadth, and a calm, assured approach to even the most high-stakes regulatory challenges. The team is particularly adept at navigating the complex intersection of health and safety law, corporate manslaughter, and public inquiries." Legal 500 2026