Serious Incident
Analysis
Independent analysis of serious construction and energy incidents where the cause, foreseeability or responsibility is in dispute. Karim Ali rebuilds the chronology from the evidence, identifies the safety management failures behind the event and tests the investigation reports already on the record.
Beyond the Immediate Cause
Investigation reports written after a serious incident usually serve a purpose other than the dispute. A contractor's internal investigation, a loss adjuster's report and a regulator's findings each answer different questions, and each can be shaped by who prepared it and why. Some stop at the immediate cause. Others reach conclusions the evidence does not support.
A tribunal needs an analysis that works from the primary evidence, explains how the incident happened and identifies which safety management failures contributed to it, and whose they were.
A failure only matters to the dispute if it contributed to the outcome. Karim separates causal factors from background conditions and explains whether the outcome would probably have been different had the missing control been in place.
What the Analysis Answers
- What happened, in what order, and on whose decisions
- Which controls failed or were missing, and why
- Whether earlier incidents, near misses or warnings showed the risk
- Whether the incident was reasonably foreseeable and preventable
- How responsibility for the failed controls was allocated between the parties
- Whether the existing investigation reports can be relied on
How the Analysis Is Done
Built from the primary evidence, with each finding traced back to its source.
-
Evidence Collection
Gathering the primary record: photographs, video, permits, logs, equipment and control system data, emails, statements and site records.
-
Chronology
A detailed timeline of the events, decisions and communications before, during and after the incident, with conflicts in the evidence identified.
-
Control Analysis
Identifying the controls that should have prevented the incident or limited its consequences, and how each one failed.
-
Causal Analysis
Structured techniques, such as barrier analysis, used to separate immediate causes, underlying causes and organisational factors.
-
Foreseeability
Review of earlier incidents, near misses, audit findings, risk assessments and warnings to establish what was known before the event.
-
Report Review
Critical review of the existing investigation reports, identifying evidence gaps, unsupported conclusions and competing explanations.
Incidents Commonly Analysed
The analysis focuses on the safety management failures behind an incident. Where specialist engineering analysis is needed, such as structural or metallurgical failure, Karim works alongside the relevant expert rather than outside his field.
Falls from height, falling materials and dropped objects during construction, lifting and maintenance work.
Crane and lifting incidents involving lift planning, rigging, exclusion zones and communication between the crew.
Electrical, mechanical, hydraulic and stored energy releases linked to failures in isolation and permit control.
Fires, explosions, hazardous releases and pressure system failures during construction, commissioning and maintenance.
Plant and vehicle incidents involving traffic management, separation of people and plant, and operator competence.
Atmospheric hazards, engulfment and collapse in confined spaces, trenches and excavations.
Reviewing Investigation Reports
Existing investigation reports are evidence, but they are not the last word. Karim reviews them for:
- The terms of reference, and what they left out
- The independence and competence of the investigation team
- Whether the conclusions follow from the evidence cited
- Evidence that was available but not considered
- Whether the method found organisational causes or stopped at individual error
- Whether the corrective actions match the causes identified
Linked Services
Incident analysis is often combined with an assessment of the contractor's wider safety management. See Contractor Safety Management System Assessment.
For investigations commissioned by organisations rather than for a dispute, see Incident Investigation. For Australian proceedings, see Causation and Contributing Factor Analysis.
- Evidence-based chronology
- Causal analysis, with each finding referenced to the record
- Critique of existing investigation reports
- Expert report, reply report and oral evidence
-
Can you work from documents if the site has changed?
Yes. Many disputes are heard years after the event, when the site has been completed, modified or demolished. The analysis relies on photographs, records, statements and data from the time. Where a site visit would still add value, Karim will say so.
-
Do you name individuals as responsible?
Karim focuses on systems, decisions and controls rather than blame. Where the instructions require it, he explains which party or role was responsible for a failed control under the project's arrangements. Legal liability remains a matter for the tribunal.
-
What if a regulator has already made findings?
Regulator findings are taken into account but tested against the evidence like any other report. The regulator's purpose, and the evidence available to it, may differ from those in the dispute.
-
Which root cause method do you use?
The method is chosen to suit the incident and explained in the report. Barrier analysis, timeline analysis and structured causal factor analysis are common. The aim is an explanation the tribunal can follow and test.
-
Can you advise before proceedings start?
Yes. An early review can identify the key safety issues, the evidence to preserve and whether a full expert report is likely to be needed.
Analyse a Serious Incident
Email Karim at Karim@safetydeeds.com with a short description of the incident, the parties and the issues in dispute.