header-logo header-logo

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

Back to the future?

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll