header-logo header-logo

28 April 2011
Issue: 7463 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Employers win out on noise

A knitting company was not responsible for an employee’s noise-induced loss of hearing where noise levels did not exceed the threshold for protection, the Supreme Court has held.

Stephanie Baker worked for 18 years until 1989. She left before 1 January 1990, the date when the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 came into force.
Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and others [2011] UKSC 17 centred on whether liability exists at common law or under s 29(1) of the Factories Act 1961, towards an employee who can establish noise-induced hearing loss resulting from exposure to noise levels between 85 and 90dB(A)lepd.
 

Before 1990, employers applied the 1971 Code of Practice on Noise which required them to protect employees from noise levels exceeding 90 dB(A)lepd.
 

Baker, who suffered tinnitus and hearing loss, claimed her former employer, Quantum Clothing Group, was liable for not providing hearing protection. At the time of her employment, the noise levels in Quantum’s factory did not exceed 90 dB(A)lepd.
 

The Supreme Court ruled that Quantum did not breach its common law or statutory duty of care towards its employee. It said Quantum had no duty to act at levels of 90 dBA (Lepd) before the introduction of the 1989 regulations.
Baker v Quantum, or “the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Textile deafness litigation” as the case is widely known, originally concerned 10 test claims of hearing loss.
 

Jim Byard, Weightmans’ head of disease, who acted for Quantum on instruction by Zurich Insurance, said: “This is a hugely important decision. Had the Supreme Court found in favour of Mrs Baker, the floodgates for tens of thousands of noise induced hearing loss claims would have opened.

“Employers must be able to rely on official guidance documents such as the Code of Practice on Noise without fear that the courts will subsequently reinterpret the law in the form of retrospective legislation.”

Issue: 7463 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll