Rotorspeed - hi.
SH is an LLP and the pay for this employee is likely (although I have no specific knowledge of SH I am very familiar with similar entities) to include bonus treated as a repayment of capital which is beneficial for tax purposes. I'm not sure how in the legal world what effect that has but anyone working in a senior position for such entities does operate with a great deal of autonomy. Certainly it is highly unlikely that (for example) some HR / support staff would call up suggesting that a trip be cancelled especially given they would likely have no idea what is or is not relevant detail wise in aviation.
In that regard this judgement reflects a very poor knowledge of the dynamic within this kind of working environment.
Regardless. You asked what steps a UK employer should take. It's a very good question. What does one ask? I could give you a bunch of flim/flam about seeing an AOC, etc but reflecting on SH being a finance company without knowledge of the relevant documents / process how does one even know?
in the judgement there is reference to a using respected travel agents but what elements allow them to pass that test?
My reference to UK accidents however was not related to that. It is merely a nod to the fact that here is a judge making comment upon the process and tests that they believe are reasonable in terms of assessing risk and having assessed that risk having a reasonable action. The accidents I refer to involve entities that are not merely casual users of helicopters (as was the case with SH).
Therefore it is surely reasonable to expect (for example) a greater awareness. If we simply take the comments made in this case here:-
"StormHarbour did owe a duty to take reasonable care not to subject Mr Dusek to unnecessary risk in travelling to the Project site for the purpose of his employment"
Upon reflection how would the EC225 be viewed?? Just for example.