The HSE in court over its chemical classification fast-track

A campaign group has asked the High Court to review the regulations that reshaped how Great Britain classifies chemical hazards. The challenge, reported by The Chemical Engineer on 30 October, names the Health and Safety Executive and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions as defendants, and turns on a fast-track mechanism added to the GB regime earlier this year.

What the regulations changed

The Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/484) were made on 30 April and came into force on 21 May. Under GB CLP, they replace the old classification procedure with a new route: for a mandatory classification-and-labelling proposal originating in a territory that has adopted the UN GHS in a similar way to the UK and runs a transparent, consultation-based classification process, the HSE may publish a technical report and recommend a requirement within twelve months, with the Secretary of State then deciding within three. The instrument also removes the GB classification-and-labelling notification database.

The challenge

The claimant group, Fighting Dirty, argues on its case page that a commitment to restrict the fast-track to “trusted” EU classifications was dropped from the final text, leaving two broad tests — whether a country’s checks are “similar” and its process “transparent” — that the HSE alone applies, without independent review, a parliamentary vote or public consultation. They name the United States as a jurisdiction that could plausibly qualify despite different standards. A judge will first decide whether the claim proceeds to a full hearing.

Why it sits upstream of the study

This is not a process-safety rule in the PSM or COMAH sense, and nothing here changes how a HAZOP is run. Its relevance is that classification is an input the study inherits. A substance’s harmonised hazard classification feeds the safety data sheets a team reads into a node, the COMAH inventory and lower/upper-tier thresholds a site is held to, and the toxicity and flammability assumptions behind a consequence estimate. A change in how those classifications are arrived at — and on whose underlying assessment — is a change in the provenance of hazard data the study treats as given. However the judicial review is decided, it is worth knowing where that data now comes from before crediting it in a study.