Appeal — prohibition notices — improvement notices — scaffolding defects — identity of duty-holder — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 33(3), 36(1) & 105. The appellant construction company had been the head contractor on a building site and had sub-contracted another company to carry out scaffolding work. An inspection by the respondent had revealed defects in the scaffolding which led the respondent to issue eight prohibition notices to the appellant. The appellant appealed the issue of the notices, arguing that they should have been issued instead to the sub-contractor that was responsible for the scaffolding. The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act, noting that more than one person on a site can have the same health and safety duties; but that the Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) has the primary duty of care, and that prohibition notices are to be given to the person with ultimate control over any unsafe activities. The Court noted that there had been a range of sub-contractors on the building site with various responsibilities, but only the appellant had control over everything that happened on the site. Therefore it had been practical for the appellant to be issued with the prohibition notices. The fact that it had received prohibition notices did not necessarily reflect badly on the appellant, it simply reflected the fact that it had responsibility to carry out remedial actions. Conversely, the respondent had issued separate improvement notices directly to the scaffolding company. The appeal was dismissed and the Court directed that costs lie where they fell. Judgment Date: 16 July 2020.