The court heard that on April 30 2010 the injured man was working on a site at Leonard Street, Islington.

The employee was working as a subcontractor on a large construction project which involved the refurbishment of three adjacent buildings to include apartments and commercial use.

At the time of the incident, a 415 volt 3 phase temporary electrical supply had been provided to the site.

The court heard that on the morning of the incident the worker approached his supervisor to explain that the electrical cable would need to be removed so that plaster board could be installed.

The Health and Safety Executive investigation revealed that Pineview Interiors Ltd undertook very limited enquiries as to whether this cable was in fact still live.

Pineview workers then proceeded with its removal on the false assumption that the cable being described must have been one of the old, redundant cables from the pre-existing installation.

The worker climbed a step ladder with a hammer and chisel to attempt to remove the cable.

After a couple of hits, the court heard that the worker recalls waking up on the floor with another employee putting flames out from the top half of his body.

The worker was taken to hospital, suffering burns to between 30 to 35 percent of his body. He has had to have a skin graft from his legs to his body and arms. It is expected to take up to two years for his skin to recover.

Pineview Interiors Limited of Rainham, Havering pleaded guilty to safety breaches and was fined a total of £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £4,183.

Speaking after the prosecution, HSE Inspector Dominic Elliss said: “The defendant company were aware that their works within 9-15 Leonard Street would require the removal of an electrical head.

“They were, or should have been, aware that this well labelled system remained live at the time that they instructed their employees to commence work in this location.

“They were made aware of the intention to remove this electrical head by their employees who held no electrical training or relevant experience.

“The defendant company then allowed these operatives to attempt to remove the live electrical system with nothing but the most cursory attempt at seeking confirmation that the system was in fact dead.

“As a direct result of the defendant’s failure to identify or control the risk of short circuit their employee suffered extensive burn injuries from the resulting explosion.”