Serene Essence Ltd v S McDonald, an Inspector appointed by City of Edinburgh Council: 8000786/2025 Serene Essence Ltd v S McDonald, an Inspector appointed by City of Edinburgh Council: 8000786/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No 8000786/2025
Between
Serene Essence LtdClaimantS McDonald, an Inspector appointed by City of Edinburgh CouncilRespondent
Before
Employment Judge EJ Porter SIRMiss Ahmed for appellantOwner and Director for appellantSarah McDonald, an Inspector appointed by for appellantCity of Edinburgh Council Respondents for appellantRepresented by: for appellantGordon Stewart (instructed by Solicitor) for appellantDate 18 July 2025
JUDGMENT
It is the judgment of the Employment Tribunal to affirm the Prohibition Notice of the 14 March 2025. Introduction[1]These proceedings concern an Appeal against a Prohibition Notice dated the 14 March 2025. The Appeal took place on the 10 and 11 July 2025 at the Edinburgh Tribunal Office. At the appeal the appellant was represented by Miss Ahmed, ETZ4(WR) owner and director and the respondents were represented by Gordon Stewart, solicitor.[2]The respondents led in evidence and the Tribunal heard evidence from Sarah McDonald ”the Inspector.” Miss Ahmed gave evidence for the appellant. The parties referred to a Joint Bundle of Documentation numbered 1-158. Additional documents were produced by the respondents numbered 42a and 42b and were inserted into the main bundle. The respondents also produced a supplementary bundle with documents numbered 1-59. The supplementary bundle included all relevant Tribunal pleadings.[3]Miss Ahmed had no objection to the additional documentation that was produced by the respondents. The Issues[4]The parties agreed that the issues could be identified as the undernoted questions:(a) Was the appellant at the date of the Notice carrying on or controlling activities, or likely to carry on activities, to which any of the relevant statutory provisions apply?(b) If so, did the activities, or would the activities if carried on, involve a risk of serious personal injury?(c) Does the Notice appropriately prohibit those activities?(d) Was the Opinion of the Inspectors on which the Notice was based reliable? In particular did they have the necessary expertise? Were the facts upon which the Notice was framed accurate? To this end, did they inspect the appellant’s premises when the appellant’s business was operational? (f) Ought the Notice to be affirmed, affirmed with modifications or cancelled? The Facts[5]After hearing the evidence the Tribunal found the undernoted essential Findings in Fact.[6]The Inspector has a BSc with Honours in Environmental Health and a Diploma in Environmental Health. She completed her qualifications in June 2023. She commenced working as a Health and Safety Inspector with the City of Edinburgh Council in October 2023. Her first year with them involved considerable training in environmental health.[7]The Inspector is a Member of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.[8]The Inspector is interested in the growth of the aesthetics industry and in particular non surgical cosmetic treatments which include botox, fillers, thread lifts and, more recently, IV Drip Infusions. The aesthetics industry is, at present, unregulated which in effect means that anyone can administer these treatments.[9]The Inspector sits as part of a working group on the growing aesthetics industry. The working group is set up by Public Health Scotland and is composed of health professionals, including a consultant plastic surgeon, together with a number of individuals who are concerned about the growth of the aesthetics industry and the fact that the industry is unregulated. The working group meets regularly and shares knowledge around the aesthetics industry in Scotland.[10]The Inspector gave uncontested evidence that she has prepared aide memoires for inspections of non surgical cosmetic businesses, and that her aide memoires are used by other Local Authorities across Scotland.[11]The Tribunal accepted the unchallenged evidence of Inspector that there is growing concern throughout the UK on the issue of non surgical cosmetic treatments being carried out by practitioners who are not suitably qualified and competent and in unsuitable environments. There has been considerable concern at Local Authority level as reports to their Environmental Health departments have been received of individuals suffering life changing injuries arising from such treatments.[12]As a result of a recent consultation exercise on the Regulation and Licensing of Non Surgical Cosmetic Procedures the Scottish Government currently has a proposal which will see non surgical cosmetics divided into three Groupings categorising risk with Group 3 being the highest risk. It is proposed that Group 3 procedures should only be carried out by defined Healthcare Professionals in sterile environments with appropriate infection control measures being observed by the person administering them (178-179) A Bill will be put before the Scottish Parliament in the autumn of 2025 with a view to implementing the proposals in the consultation paper.[13]IV Drip Infusions are categorised in the Scottish Government’s proposed Group 3 list of treatments which are considered the most invasive procedures requiring a higher level of medical knowledge to carry out safely as they involve a higher risk of complications. IV Drip Infusions require the use of saline solution which can be obtained on prescription only in the UK. Treatments known as IV Vitamin Drip Infusions have become increasingly popular in the last 8-9 months. This involves the practitioner adding vitamins to the standard prescription saline solution and administering it by IV Drip Infusion.[14]There was no dispute on the evidence that IV Drip Infusions carry risk of infection. They also carry the risk of thrombosis, infiltration, phlebitis, air embolism (which can cause strokes and respiratory diseases) , fluid overload, allergic reaction and overdoses. IV Drip Infusions can also cause mask the symptoms of more serious health conditions.[15]In the view of the working group set up by Public Health Scotland the administering of IV Drip Infusions by individuals other than HealthCare Professionals has the potential to cause risk to public health.[16]The guidance for the administering of IV Drip Infusions by Healthcare Professionals is to be found within the NICE guidelines at 55 onwards. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Inspector that before being allowed to administer an IV Drip Infusion, a person has to be a registered Healthcare Professional who has undergone specific training in IV drips. Nurses then have to undergo eight supervised practice sessions in inserting an IV drip. Any Healthcare Professional who uses IV drips has to undergo continuing training. Every time an IV drip is used in a hospital by a nurse the provision of IV fluid has to be signed off by two senior nurses.[17]In October 2024 it was estimated that there were around 124 businesses offering aesthetic treatments within the boundaries of the City of Edinburgh Council. After receiving a number of complaints arising from treatments received at such businesses a decision was taken by the Environmental Health Department of the City of Edinburgh Council to inspect premises which were offering treatments categorised within Group 3 by the Scottish Government.[18]The appellant rents a room from Medusa Hair at 23 Broughton Street Edinburgh EH1 3JU (“the premises”). Miss Ahmed uses the room every Saturday for treatments including botox, fillers and a wide range of IV Vitamin Drip Infusions. Miss Ahmed is not a Healthcare Professional and holds no formal healthcare qualifications. She has a full time job in the finance sector.[19]Social Media posts by the appellant in October 2024 came to the attention of the City of Edinburgh Council. In particular, one video showed Miss Ahmed administering an IV Vitamin Drip Infusion. In the opinion of the Inspector there were aspects of the video of this procedure that gave rise to the concern that there was a risk of serious personal injury to the client. The Inspector considered that this video showed a risk of serious personal injury as, in her opinion, there was an obvious lack of infection control including a lack of ventilation.[20]Miss Ahmed did not dispute that the video showed her administering an IV Vitamin Drip Infusion to a client.[21]On 12 March 2025 an officer of the City of Edinburgh Council telephoned Miss Ahmed and arranged to meet up with her at the premises at 12 noon on Friday 14 March 2025. Miss Ahmed advised the officer that she rents a treatment room in the basement of the premises on Saturdays and that during the week the room is rented by a beauty therapist whose work is unrelated to the services offered by the appellant.[22]The inspector, together with John Gamon (who is another Health and Safety Inspector with the City of Edinburgh Council) attended the premises on the 14 March 2025.[23]Miss Ahmed advised the officers that she carries out a variety of non surgical cosmetic treatments from the premises and that she has a keen interest in what she described as IV Drip Therapy. To this end she obtains prescription saline online and adds vitamins to it, offering a range of IV Vitamin Drip Infusions to her clients. .Miss Ahmed gave evidence that the focus of her business is on ‘wellness’ rather than beauty and aesthetics. The Inspector accepted that at the time of the inspection the room was not set up as it would be whilst Miss Ahmed was carrying out treatments.[24]Miss Ahmed was asked to produce details of her qualifications and produced a certificate dated the 9 January 2024 for IV Drip Therapy (44). The course was completed in one day. Miss Ahmed advised that the course had entailed a talk on theory, a demonstration and then a practical exercise on live models who were provided by the training academy running the course. Miss Ahmed confirmed that she had had no other supervision after attending the one day course. She did, however, give evidence which was accepted by the Tribunal that she had undertaken three months of online training prior to attending this one day course.[25]In addition, Miss Ahmed had completed a multi day course at a hotel in Glasgow in September 2023 which had also been preceded by several months of online training (16).This course was focused on botox, fillers and cosmetic treatments other than IV Drip Infusions.[26]The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Inspector that there was a considerable disparity between the qualifications of Miss Ahmed and the qualifications that are required under the NICE guidelines for the administration of IV drips by Healthcare Professionals. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Inspector that the disparity between the qualifications gave rise to real concern that Miss Ahmed was not suitably qualified to administer IV Drip Infusions.[27]The Inspector noted that the treatment room that the appellant works from is small, namely 6 metres by 4 metres, with a treatment bed in the middle of the room. A window was the only apparent source of ventilation in the room. There was, however, a small extraction fan above the shower. There was a dispute on whether or not this fan was working on the 14 March 2025.[28]The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Inspector, however, that whether or not this fan was working the ventilation in the room was not sufficient for the type of procedures being carried out by Miss Ahmed. To this end the evidence of the Inspector was accepted that the more invasive the procedures the more air exchange is required. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Inspector that adequate ventilation decreases the likelihood of pathogens accumulating in the treatment room, which is important when procedures (such as IV Infusions) involve skin penetration or exposure to bodily fluids.[29]The officers noted that the walls of the treatment room are covered with wallpaper and there was a fabric covered chair in the room. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Inspector that wallpaper and soft furnishings can absorb fluids, spills and other contaminants and can harbour bacteria. Miss Ahmed gave evidence that the wallpaper could be wiped down and that the chair is not present when she carries out her treatments. The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the Inspector, however, that the wallpaper remained an infection hazard as it could not easily be wiped down.[30]A storage drawer was opened by one of the officers and was found to contain items which would be used for non surgical treatments by Miss Ahmed such as injectables, open swabs, a metallic kidney dish and gloves. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Inspector that the storage of those items was not sufficient to protect them from risk of contamination. In this respect the evidence was accepted that the storage was sufficient for single use items but that there was risk of contamination for multi use items such as the kidney dish and that this could lead to infection. No suitable disinfectant to sanitize them was visible or was produced by Miss Ahmed to the Inspector. .[31]The Inspector asked Miss Ahmed about what skin disinfectant she possesses. The Tribunal accepted the uncontested evidence of the Inspector that there is a particular need for skin disinfectant with invasive procedures such as IV Drip Infusions as the skin is broken and if bacteria gets into the vein the consequences can be catastrophic. The evidence of the Inspector was accepted that the appellant produced unlabelled orange liquid and that this fell beneath the required minimum standards for skin disinfectant.[32]The treatment of IV Vitamin Drip Infusions involves the administration of products which require to be stored at cold temperatures. The officers could identify no refrigerated area within the treatment room where such items could be stored. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of Miss Ahmed, however, that on Saturdays she brings a small fridge into the treatment room to store such items and that it is used for storing these items only.[33]The Tribunal accepted that the Inspector asked Miss Ahmed all the questions to be found in 43 of the Bundle. The Tribunal heard significant and compelling evidence from the Inspector on Miss Ahmed’s answers to these questions.[34]The first question that the Inspector asked Miss Ahmed was with regard to the aseptic technique. The aseptic technique is (broadly speaking) a set of practices and procedures designed to minimise the risk of contamination by harmful microorganisms during medical procedures. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Inspector that Miss Ahmed was unable to answer this question.[35]The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the Inspector that Miss Ahmed was unable to respond when asked whether she could describe the difference between Isotonic Solution, Hypotonic Solution and Hypertonic Solution. To this end there was uncontested evidence that the addition of vitamins to the standard prescription saline solution used for IV Drip Therapy could change the nature of that solution causing the solution to change from Isotonic to Hypotonic or Hypertonic. The Tribunal accepted the uncontested evidence of the Inspector that the dangers of administering a Hypotonic or Hypertonic solution to a client could include brain damage, heart failure and kidney failure.[36]The Inspector later phoned a senior nurse who is involved in the nursing degree at the University of Napier and asked about the importance of understanding the difference between Isotonic Solutions and Hypotonic and Hypertonic Solutions in the administration of IV Drip Infusions. The Inspector was then advised that an understanding of these different solutions was baseline knowledge in the administration of IV Drip Infusions and without such understanding an individual should not be authorised to administer IV Drip Infusions.[37]The Tribunal also accepted the evidence of the Inspector that Miss Ahmed could not answer when asked what vital signs she should monitor, such as heart rate, blood pressure and signs of fluid overload and that she could not explain what the term fluid imbalance means and could not answer how she would identify or deal with it. Neither could Miss Ahmed describe what an occluded site is and how she would deal with it.[38]A Prohibition Notice under s22 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 was served on the appellant on the 14 March 2025. The Prohibition Notice prohibited the appellant from placing Mono Polydioxanone (PDO) threads under the skin of the face or body in any location within the City of Edinburgh Council Boundary- in other words the administration of IV Drip Infusions. The Prohibition Notice is to be found at item 42 of the Joint Bundle.[39]At the same time Prohibition Notices were also served prohibiting the appellant from providing PDO threads and PRP procedures to the general public.[40]The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Inspector that when she issued the Prohibition Notice she took into account the fact that the appellant’s premises were not operational at that time. To this end she considered Miss Ahmed’s assurances that the fabric chair would be removed whilst carrying out treatments and that a portable fridge was brought into the premises for storage of items which require to be stored at a cold temperature.[41]An Appeal was intimated by the appellant by ET1 dated the 1 April 2025 in respect of the Prohibition Notice at 42 of the Joint Bundle.[42]Subsequent to the intimation of the Prohibition Notice Miss Ahmed intimated a number of documents including an Infection Control Policy (9), IV Drip Therapy Protocols (12), and Certificates of Anaphylaxis for Aestheticians (14) and Workplace First Aid (15). The latter two certificates are dated the 5th and 7th May 2025. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Inspector that even if these documents had been to hand at the time of the inspection on 14 March 2025 they still would not have gone far enough to satisfy her that there was not a risk of serious personal injury in the application of IV Drip Infusions by Miss Ahmed and that the Prohibition Notice (42) would still have been issued. Observations on the Evidence[43]There were a number of key areas of dispute in the evidence. Significant among those were the competing accounts by the witnesses of the questions asked at 43 of the Joint Bundle and Miss Ahmed’s answers to those questions. To this end the Tribunal noted that that the Miss Ahmed’s position was that she answered the question put to her about the Aseptic Technique and that the key question on the difference between Isotonic Solution, Hypotonic Solution and Hypertonic Solution was not asked by the Inspector.[44]In reaching a conclusion on these disputed accounts the Tribunal had regard to the evidence of Miss Ahmed that at the time of the inspection she was nervous and anxious about a difficult personal situation that she was experiencing in her life.[45]However, the Tribunal resolved this dispute in evidence in favour of the Inspector. The Tribunal found that the Inspector gave her evidence in a straightforward and professional manner and could find no possible motivation for her to lie whilst giving evidence in the course of her employment as a Health and Safety Inspector. The Law The law The following sections of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 are relevant: “ 2 General duties of employers to their employees(1) It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.(2) Without prejudice to the generality of an employer’s duty under the preceding subsection, the matters to which that duty extends include in particular – (a) the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health….. 3 General duties of employers and self-employed to persons other than their employees (1) It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety……..” 22 Prohibition notices (1) This section applies to any activities which are being or are likely to be carried on by or under the control of any person, being activities to or in relation to which any of the relevant statutory provisions apply or will, if the activities are so carried on, apply. (2) If as regards any activities to which this section applies an inspector is of the opinion that, as carried on or likely to be carried on by or under the control of the person in question, the activities involve or, as the case may be, will involve a risk of serious personal injury, the inspector may serve on that person a notice (in this Part referred to as “a prohibition notice”).(3) A prohibition notice shall— (a) state that the inspector is of the said opinion; (b) specify the matters which in his opinion give or, as the case may be, will give rise to the said risk; (c) where in his opinion any of those matters involves or, as the case may be, will involve a contravention of any of the relevant statutory provisions, state that he is of that opinion, specify the provision or provisions as to which he is of that opinion, and give particulars of the reasons why he is of that opinion; and (d) direct that the activities to which the notice relates shall not be carried on by or under the control of the person on whom the notice is served unless the matters specified in the notice in pursuance of paragraph (b) above and any associated contraventions of provisions so specified in pursuance of paragraph (c) above have been remedied.(4) A direction contained in a prohibition notice in pursuance of subsection (3)(d) above shall take effect— (a) at the end of the period specified in the notice; or (b) if the notice so declares, immediately. 23 Provisions supplementary to ss. 21 and 22 (1) In this section ‘a notice’ means an improvement notice or a prohibition notice. (2) A notice may (but need not) include directions as to the measures to be taken to remedy any contravention or matter to which the notice relates; and any such directions— (a) may be framed to any extent by reference to any approved code of practice; and (b) may be framed so as to afford the person on whom the notice is served a choice between different ways of remedying the contravention or matter……….. 24 Appeal against improvement or prohibition notice (1) In this section 'a notice' means an improvement notice or a prohibition notice. (2) A person on whom a notice is served may within such period from the date of its service as may be prescribed appeal to an employment tribunal; and on such an appeal the tribunal may either cancel or affirm the notice and, if it affirms it, may do so either in its original form or with such modifications as the tribunal may in the circumstances think fit. (3) Where an appeal under this section is brought against a notice within the period allowed under the preceding subsection, then— (a) in the case of an improvement notice, the bringing of the appeal shall have the effect of suspending the operation of the notice until the appeal is finally disposed of or, if the appeal is withdrawn, until the withdrawal of the appeal; (b) in the case of a prohibition notice, the bringing of the appeal shall have the like effect if, but only if, on the application of the appellant the tribunal so directs (and then only from the giving of the direction). (4) One or more assessors may be appointed for the purposes of any proceedings brought before an employment tribunal under this section.” Section 82 defines modification as including “additions, omissions and amendments”. The word “risk” is not defined in the Act. Lord Hope of Craighead explained in R v Chargot [2008] UKHL 73, which was a criminal prosecution for breach of section 2 of the Act, that “when the legislation refers to risks it is not contemplating risks that are trivial or fanciful. It is not its purpose to impose burdens on employers that are wholly unreasonable…..The law does not aim to create an environment that is entirely risk free. It concerns itself with risks that are material. That, in effect, is what the word ‘risk’ which the statute uses means. It is directed at situations where there is a material risk to health and safety, which any reasonable person would appreciate and take steps to guard against.” The requirement is of a risk of significant injury, not a likelihood, and “in the context the word ‘risk’ conveys the idea of a possibility of danger” – R v Board of Trustees of the Science Museum [1993] ICR 876. The test to be applied to such an appeal was addressed by the Supreme Court in HM Inspector of Health and Safety v Chevron North Sea Ltd [2018] UKSC 7. It concerned a Prohibition Notice following the inspection of an offshore installation. The Inspector considered that the metal access way to the helideck had corroded such that it was unsafe, with a risk to those using it falling through. A Prohibition Notice was issued because of that. The appellant in that case commissioned an independent expert study of the access way after receipt of the Notice which found that the metal within it met all safety standards. The question was whether the test to be applied by the Tribunal was what was or should have been known by the Inspector at the time of the Notice being issued, as the HSE argued on the basis of Rotary Yorkshire Ltd v Hague [2015] EWCA Civ 296 and others, or the facts which existed at the time of the Notice, although they were determined after the Notice and were not known to the inspector at that time, as the Inner House of the Court of Session had decided (reported at [2016] SC 709). Lady Black of Derwent gave the sole speech in the Supreme Court and the material part of it is as follows: “When the inspector serves the notice, section 22 makes clear that what matters is that he is of the opinion that the activities in question involve a risk of serious personal injury. If he is of that opinion, the notice comes into existence. However, as it seems to me, when it comes to an appeal, the focus shifts. The appeal is not against the inspector’s opinion but against the notice itself, as the heading of section 24 indicates. Everyone agrees that it involves the tribunal looking at the facts on which the notice was based. Here, as the inspector spelled out in the notice, the risk that he perceived arose by virtue of corrosion of stairways and gratings giving access to the helideck, and the focus was therefore on the state of that metalwork at the time when the notice was served. The tribunal had to decide whether, at that time, it was so weakened by corrosion as to give rise to a risk of serious personal injury. The inspector’s opinion about the risk, and the reasons why he formed it and served the notice, could be relevant as part of the evidence shedding light on whether the risk existed, but I can see no good reason for confining the tribunal’s consideration to the material that was, or should have been, available to the inspector. It must, in my view, be entitled to have regard to other evidence which assists in ascertaining what the risk in fact was. If, as in this case, the evidence shows that there was no risk at the material time, then, notwithstanding that the inspector was fully justified in serving the notice, it will be modified or cancelled as the situation requires.” The key point in light of Chevron is therefore that whether or not there was a breach of a health and safety provision for an Improvement Notice, or whether or not there was a risk of serious personal injury in a Prohibition Notice are matters of fact determined on the balance of probability having regard to all the evidence, including evidence obtained after service of the Notice in question. Submissions for the appellant The undernoted is a summary of the submissions of the appellant, in Miss Ahmed’s own words. I would like to begin by reaffirming my competence to safely administer IV drip treatments. I have completed accredited training, operate under prescriber oversight, and strictly follow the protocols expected of a non-medical practitioner. Every client completes a full medical history and consent form, which is reviewed by a prescriber prior to treatment. I adhere to infection control protocols, use sterile single-use equipment, and visually monitor each client throughout their infusion. I am fully insured and maintain thorough documentation, including risk assessments and aftercare advice for every client. I run a well-being and aesthetics clinic — not a medical clinic — and I have never represented it otherwise. My work centres around wellness and helping clients feel confident in themselves. I make this clear in my branding and client communication. All equipment is disinfected using medically approved cleaning products, as evidenced in the bundle I’ve submitted. Turning to the inspection, I believe the findings were based on an incomplete and inaccurate assessment. The inspector stated that no infection control products were visible, but I clearly showed her where items were stored — including under the sink — and we even discussed the alcohol content of my sanitisers. Her later statement contradicts the actual events of that day. The inspection took place midweek when my clinic was closed. I treat clients strictly by appointment at weekends, so naturally the room was not set up for treatment at the time. All equipment is safely stored when not in use. I would also like to point out that this was a routine, unannounced inspection — not one prompted by any patient complaints, incidents, or safety concerns. There has never been a client adverse reaction, complaint, or regulatory warning associated with my IV drip services. This further supports that my practice has been run responsibly and with a clear commitment to client safety. After the inspection, I sent a follow-up email asking what steps I could take to improve or rectify my IV protocols. I received no constructive feedback — only a response stating that the Prohibition Notice would stand. No guidance, support, or chance to make changes was provided. The inspector also did not ask to see my insurance, clinical protocols, or consent forms, despite it being my first inspection. The visit appeared narrowly focused on Category 3 procedures like IV drips, PRP, and thread lifts. Other treatments such as dermal fillers or wrinkle reduction — which also fall within the scope of regulation — were barely acknowledged. This suggests the inspection was predetermined in its intent. Finally, I was surprised by the inspector’s comment questioning why I had an emergency protocol poster displayed. Emergency preparedness — particularly for complications such as vascular occlusion — is a fundamental requirement in aesthetic practice. This raised concerns for me about the inspector’s understanding of basic industry safety protocols. For all of these reasons, I respectfully ask the Tribunal to cancel the Prohibition Notice. I am committed to safe and ethical practice and have demonstrated both willingness and capability to comply with all required standards. Submissions for the respondents The undernoted is a summary of the submissions for the respondents, in their own words. The Respondent is an inspector appointed by City of Edinburgh Council, the relevant enforcing authority for the City of Edinburgh under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (“the 1974 Act”). Section 3 of the 1974 Act imposes a duty upon employers “to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure so far as reasonably practicable that persons not in his employment who may be affected are not therefore exposed to risks to their health or safety.” Section 22(2) and (3) provides authority to an inspector to serve a Prohibition Notice upon an employer in respect of any activity where that inspector is of the opinion that, as carried on or likely to be carried on by or under the control of the person in question, the activities involve or, as the case may be, will involve a risk of serious personal injury. The Supreme Court in the case of HMIHS v Chevron North Sea Ltd [2018] UKSC7 set out the proper basis on which the Tribunal should consider the evidence of risk. The Tribunal heard evidence from Ms Sarah McDonald, Environmental Health Officer of City of Edinburgh Council and from Ms Saima Ahmed, sole Director and sole practitioner of Serene Essence Limited. The evidence of Ms McDonald as to the events of the inspection was consistent and logical. She spoke to her qualifications and the specific training and interest she has in connection with the subject matter of the present proceedings. She spoke to the expert working groups she contributes to and takes advice from. She spoke also to the work she personally has put into the development of aides memoire which have been accepted for use by other authorities. That evidence was consistently stated when challenged in specific areas in cross examination. I would invite the Tribunal to prefer the evidence of Ms McDonald in those limited areas of the evidence where there was a dispute, in particular: -a. The Claimant was asked about her training and qualifications to carry out the procedure of IV Drip therapy and other non-surgical procedures, and the Claimant produced physical copies of training certificates which had been issued to her. At the time of the visit the Claimant could not provide evidence to the inspectors of First Aid or medical training which would be considered appropriate for the potential risks to health which may result from the treatment.b. The inspector found deficiencies in the physical environment in which the Claimant provided the procedure of IV Drip Therapy. The inspector was of the opinion that there was inadequate ventilation within the room to allow sufficient air exchange and removal of contaminants from the environment. Adequate ventilation can help reduce the risk of airborne transmission of infectious agents and decreases the likelihood of pathogens accumulating in the treatment room.c. The procedure of IV Drip Therapy is not specifically regulated currently within a beauty therapist setting. There is relevant guidance contained within the Local Authority Implementation Guide in respect of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act (Licensing of Skin Piercing and Tattooing) Order 2006 (p93ff) and the Intravenous fluid therapy in adults in hospital Clinical Guideline (p55ff). Skin Piercing and Tattooing is considered to be a procedure with similar risks relating to contamination and infection control, and IV Drip Therapy presents the same risks whether in a hospital setting or in a beauty therapy setting.d. The walls of the treatment room were covered with wallpaper and there was a fabric covered chair. Wallpaper and soft furnishings can absorb fluids, spills and other contaminants and can harbour bacteria and other pathogens. It is considered a minimum standard of the environment within which such procedure takes place that there are smooth, impervious surfaces which can be easily cleaned and disinfected.e. Storage was inadequate to ensure equipment is protected from contamination particularly storage of items that would be used for nonsurgical treatments such as injectables, open swabs, a metallic kidney dish and gloves used by Saima Ahmed for procedures including IV Drip Therapy. Such items should be stored in such a way as to be protected from contamination.f. The procedure of IV Drip therapy involves the administration of products which require to be stored at cold temperatures. The officers could identify no refrigerated area within the treatment room where such items could be stored.g. The inspector asked the Claimant a series of questions related to risk assessment and mitigations put in place for the said non-surgical procedures, particularly regarding infection control arrangements and mitigations. The inspector prepared a series of questions which are produced at p43 in advance of the inspection. The inspector asked Saima Ahmed each of those questions during the inspection visit on 14 March 2025. Saima Ahmed’s responses to those questions called into question in the mind of the Inspector her competence to carry out the procedure of IV Drip Therapy. The training course which had been completed by Ms Ahmed on IV Drip Therapy and Ultimate Aesthetics was not considered to be sufficient by the Inspector. It is a matter of agreement that the procedure of IV Drip Therapy is carried out by Serene Essence Limited and was being carried out at the time of service of the Prohibition Notice under appeal. It is a matter of agreement that there are risks associated with the carrying out of the procedure of IV Drip Therapy, which include risks to the health and safety of clients undergoing that procedure. It is a matter of agreement in the evidence that those risks could lead to serious consequences The Claimant is an employer, having a director and sole practitioner employed by them Ms Saima Ahmed. At the date of serving the Prohibition Notice, 14 March 2025, an activity was being undertaken under the control of the Claimant in the course of their business, that activity being the offering to clients of IV Drip Therapy. That activity involves the risk of serious personal injury to clients of the Claimant. As of the 14 March 2025 that risk of serious personal injury was in existence. In my submission the Tribunal should refuse the appeal and uphold the Prohibition Notice. Discussion and Decision[46]The Tribunal turned to the issues in this case in determining this case.(a) Was the appellant at the date of the Notice carrying on or controlling activities, or likely to carry on activities, to which any of the relevant statutory provisions apply?(b) If so, did the activities, or would the activities if carried on, involve a risk of serious personal injury?[47]The Tribunal noted that there was no dispute between the parties that the appellant was carrying on and controlling activities to which the relevant statutory provisions apply and that the provision of IV Drip Infusions do involve a risk of serious personal injury. In this respect it was not disputed that IV Drip Infusions can result in infection, thrombosis, infiltration, phlebitis, air embolism, fluid overload, allergic reaction, overdose and can mask more serious health conditions. The Tribunal considered that such risk amounted to a significant risk to health and safety and noted that Miss Ahmed did not argue otherwise. (c) Does the Notice appropriately prohibit those activities?[48]The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the Inspector on issues of her concern regarding the appellant’s practices on infection control including ventilation, the wallpaper in the room, the storage, the lack of obvious skin disinfectant and her lack of knowledge of the aseptic technique.[49]The Tribunal found the passage of evidence on Miss Ahmed’s lack of knowledge of the differences between Isotonic Solution, Hypotonic Solution and Hypertonic Solution to be concerning and revealing evidence. To this end the Tribunal had regard to the evidence that the addition of vitamins to Isotonic Solution could cause it to become Hypotonic or Hypertonic Solution; and that the effects of administering Hypotonic or Hypertonic Solution to a client could include brain damage, heart failure and kidney failure.[50]Finally, in reaching a conclusion that the Notice did appropriately prohibit those activities, the Tribunal noted that the Notice simply prohibited Miss Ahmed from carrying out IV Drip therapy allowing her to carry on with her other treatments such as botox and fillers. (d) Was the Opinion of the Inspectors on which the Notice was based reliable? In particular did they have the necessary expertise? Were the facts upon which the Notice was framed accurate? To this end, did they inspect the appellant’s premises when the appellant’s business was operational?[51]The Tribunal took careful consideration of the evidence of the Inspector on the issue of her qualifications. In determining that the Inspector had the necessary expertise to reach the conclusions that she did prior to issuing the Prohibition Notice the Tribunal had regard to the fact that the Inspector has a relevant degree and professional qualification and had also undergone a year’s training in her current employment. The Tribunal also had regard to the fact that the Inspector sits on a working group who share expertise and concerns on the unregulated aesthetics industry. The Tribunal also had regard to the fact that the Inspector has prepared aide memoires for the inspection of businesses carrying out non surgical cosmetic treatments, and that her aide memoires are used in other Local Authorities.[52]In determining that the facts upon which the Notice of Prohibition was issued were accurate the Tribunal had regard to the fact that they preferred the evidence of the Inspector on key issues including the questions posed to Miss Ahmed during the inspection, all as articulated in 43. The Tribunal also agreed with the opinion of the Inspector, expressed during evidence, that there was a considerable disparity between the minimum level of qualifications required for Healthcare Professionals to administer IV Drips under the NICE guidelines and the qualifications of Miss Ahmed to do the same.[53]The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Inspector that she took into account the fact that the appellant’s premises were not operational at the time of the inspection on the 14 March 2025. To this end the Inspector accepted that the fabric chair would not be present whilst Miss Ahmed carried out IV Drip Infusions and that a fridge would be present to store items which require to be stored at a cold temperature. (f) Ought the Notice to be affirmed, affirmed with modifications or cancelled?[54]In all of these circumstances the Tribunal reached the conclusion that the Prohibition Notice should be affirmed. In reaching this determination the Tribunal concluded that, after taking into account all the evidence, the respondents have proved on balance of probability that the appellant’s practice of offering IV Vitamin Infusion Drips to clients causes a risk of serious personal injury to the general public.