A COUNCILLOR has questioned why Cotswold District Council (CDC) prosecuted a firm with just £134 in assets over the death of a teenager, instead of its wealthy parent company.

WM Active Ltd was fined £240,000 earlier this month for health and safety breaches which contributed to the death of 15-year-old Kajil Devi, who drowned at the Cotswold Country Park and Beach on July 11, 2010.

During the sentencing at Gloucester Crown Court, prosecutors said that the two lifeguards on duty that day were not properly trained and that WM Active – which runs the beach – did not have a plan in place for dealing with emergencies, among other health and safety failures.

It was also revealed in court that WM Active Ltd had just £134 in net assets at the time of being sentenced.

This has led Cllr Esmond Jenkins, CDC ward member for Cotswold Water Park, to question why the council did not prosecute WM Active's parent company, Watermark Investments Leisure Developments Ltd (WILD) which holds the lease to the beach.

He said he obtained the balance sheets for the company in 2012, when the prosecution was set in motion, which showed that WM Active had debts of £1million and no assets.

Cllr Jenkins, who is also a lawyer, said the council should have prosectured WILD.

He said: “Why the shell company? It has no prospect of being paid."

However, a spokesman for CDC, said the council expected the fine money to be recovered from WM Active's parent company.

He explained that the prosecution was dictated by which organisation was responsible for the Cotswold Country Park and Beach at the time of the death, and that was W M Active.

“The council could not prosecute another company in a group just because that company appears to be more prosperous," he said.

"Additionally, at the sentencing hearing, his honour Judge Hart, when handing down sentence, stated that he imposed the fine of £90,000 and costs of £150,000 on the basis that the wider company group would support W M Active Ltd."

The spokesman added: "It was not only morally and legally correct but also in the interests of the wider public – and in particular the users of the water park – for the council to prosecute WM Active Ltd.

"The judge clearly agreed with the council’s actions given his ruling.

"The decision to prosecute was also taken following consultation with relevant members, including the ward councillors.”