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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll