10th September 2026

When Missing Safety Checks Turn Fatal: Lessons from the UK Athletics Throwing Cage Collapse

On a summer day in 2017, Paralympic athlete Abdullah Hayayei travelled from the UAE to London with one purpose: to compete at the Para Athletics Event during the World Athletics Championships. While practising shot put at a local leisure centre, a sudden gust of wind struck and the throwing cage around him collapsed. Mr Hayayei suffered catastrophic head injuries and died at the scene.

This tragedy was not an unforeseeable freak accident. It was the result of years of missed inspections, ignored warning signs, and a failure to follow basic equipment safety requirements.

A Critical Component Missing For Five Years

Investigators quickly discovered a stark truth: the stabilising base plates designed to keep the 5-metre-tall cage secure had been missing for around five years.

These plates were essential. Without them, the cage could not withstand wind forces. Their long-term absence revealed:

• A prolonged failure to inspect and maintain equipment
• Poor management oversight
• A dangerous structure left in use despite an obvious risk of serious injury or death

This wasn’t a momentary lapse; it was a systemic breakdown in safety management.

The Governing Body Held Accountable

UK Athletics Ltd (UKA), the national governing body for the sport, was responsible for ensuring the cage was safe during training and competition. It failed in that duty.

UKA pleaded guilty to corporate manslaughter. The court imposed:

• £350,000 fine
• £44,000 in costs

The ruling underscored that governing bodies are not exempt from fundamental health and safety responsibilities.

PUWER Duties: Stability, Inspection, And Safe Use

Under Regulation 6 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER), UKA was required to ensure the cage was inspected:

• When first installed
• Whenever it was relocated
• In accordance with manufacturer instructions

Mr Davies, UKA’s Head of Sport, supervised the cage’s erection at the leisure centre. Despite being familiar with its design, even having visited the manufacturer in Spain, he failed to check that the stabilising base plates were fitted.

Because the cage’s safety depended entirely on its stability, UKA was also obliged to take appropriate measures to secure it.

If equipment is regularly assembled, disassembled, and moved, inspections must be carried out every time it is relocated. A standardised process, such as a Work Equipment Routine Inspection Report, helps ensure nothing is missed.

Personal Responsibility And Missed Warning Signs

Mr Davies’ involvement went beyond oversight. He had:

• Helped purchase the cage
• Observed its installation at the factory
• Written instructions for its safe assembly
• Knowledge of a previous collapse in 2012

That earlier incident caused no injuries, but it was a clear near miss. And near misses are warnings. Ignoring them is evidence of weak safety culture.

Mr Davies pleaded guilty to breaching his employee duty under Section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which requires employees to take reasonable care for themselves and others. He received a community order requiring 175 hours of unpaid work.

Preventing The Next Tragedy: Equipment Safety Essentials

This case reinforces a simple truth: equipment safety is never optional. Organisations must ensure that work equipment remains safe through:

• Manufacturer-led installation; following instructions precisely
• Inspection at installation and reinstallation; plus routine checks
• Training for assembly and disassembly; ensuring competence at every stage

When these basics are neglected, risk becomes normalised, and catastrophic outcomes become inevitable.