header-logo header-logo

Back to the future?

12 May 2011 / Boris Cetnik , Malcolm Keen
Issue: 7465 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Boris Cetnik & Malcolm Keen reflect on the ramifications of Baker v Quantum

The Supreme Court allowed the defendants’ appeals in Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and others [2011] UKSC 17, [2011] All ER (D) 137 (Apr) last month, the first noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) case decided at this level. In largely restoring the judge’s 2007 judgment, the Supreme Court has returned NIHL practice back to the position prior to the Court of Appeal’s decision. But Baker’s consequences arguably go further. Potentially, it has ramifications for occupational illness litigation in general and for statutory interpretation—both in relation to the provision under consideration in Baker (s 29 of the Factories Act 1961 (FaA 1961)), and in relation to duties in other legislation passed many years ago.

The claim was one of seven test cases brought against four different employers in the textile industry known as the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Deafness Litigation (unreported, High Court, Nottingham District Registry, 14 February 2007). Between 1971 and 1989, the claimant, Mrs Baker, was exposed to

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll